Is my CFII having me fly the ILS too fast?

Seems odd to me to fly an odd speed. Non rnav-Gps plates have handy tables at the bottom showing time from FAF to MAP. Doesn't he have you hack the clock when passing the FAF? I would t want to be having to calculate times for odd speeds in my head. I'd choose either 90 or 120kts, I choose 90 in the Mooney.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Seems odd to me to fly an odd speed. Non rnav-Gps plates have handy tables at the bottom showing time from FAF to MAP. Doesn't he have you hack the clock when passing the FAF? I would t want to be having to calculate times for odd speeds in my head. I'd choose either 90 or 120kts, I choose 90 in the Mooney.
Click to expand...

Yup. Another good reason.
 
Nope. He has only had me use the clock during holds, not from the FAF on an ILS. Looking at the "ILS X or LOC X RWY 16R" at KRNO, there is no table of times on the plate. We don't have a non-RNAV GPS approach here.
 
Late to the thread but you got good advice and sounds like you're on a path to figuring out locally what's in the CFII's head.

To add some hard data to the opinion that 130 is excessive...

From the Dakota POH...

Turbulent Air Operating Speed 124
(He's having you fly approaches 6 knots faster.)

Maximum Flap Speed 102
(You've got to lose 28 knots worth of energy before you can deploy the flaps -- that's not going to meet the standards of the approach in the ACS as quoted above.)

Landing Final Approach Speed (Flap 40) 72
(If you're planning to land full flap, you have 58 knots worth of energy to lose total and 30 knots to lose after flap extension)

And the Approach and Landing checklist in Section 4 says to slow below 102, extend flaps, and "Trim for 72 knots."

So yeah. 130 is excessive as a standard in that aircraft, and you can pull it directly from the POH.

It's almost strangely impressive how some of these weird things get started that completely disregard the one document every CFI teaches students to use religiously, isn't it? ;)
 
DesertNomad said:
Nope. He has only had me use the clock during holds, not from the FAF on an ILS. Looking at the "ILS X or LOC X RWY 16R" at KRNO, there is no table of times on the plate.
Click to expand...
Have you done any other approaches besides and ILS? In some cases, when you hit the end of your time, you have to go missed so it's imperative you keep your timing. For an ILS you don't really need to time anything because you're going missed at DA.
 
Yes, any non-precision approach is going to require timing to determine when to go missed. I sure hope he has you fly a few loc or vor approaches.
 
DesertNomad said:
Nope. He has only had me use the clock during holds, not from the FAF on an ILS. Looking at the "ILS X or LOC X RWY 16R" at KRNO, there is no table of times on the plate. We don't have a non-RNAV GPS approach here.
Click to expand...

My guess is there is not table because the procedure requires DME.
upload_2016-12-30_19-43-28.png
 
Sorry, I was suggesting why there is no time table in the lower right of the approach plate.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Yes, any non-precision approach is going to require timing to determine when to go missed. I sure hope he has you fly a few loc or vor approaches.
Click to expand...

The local VOR approach is the VOR-D at KRNO. The MAP is 5nm from FMG (local VOR) and he has me using the GPS to determine 5nm to go missed at 6000'.
 
That looks like the approach I would use the stopwatch for, and not the DME (or as you stated GPS) so you can get used to timed approaches. Otherwise how will you get used to the lack of DME markings?

Note: I'm not a CFII... just reading it the way it looks to me and what I THINK I'm being taught.

Nate's pretty good at correcting my babble. And he has A LOT of backup ;)
 
That VOR-D is a pretty steep descent. 7800 to 6000 in 5nm and I usually do that at 90-100kts. It is on the east side of the valley and I have been on that approach with the power at idle, nose down, going up at 1500fpm. Ah the winds in Reno. :)
 
DesertNomad said:
He says since there is 11,000' there is plenty of time to slow down and it is easier to fly it fast than slow. Maybe for him :D

In real life, Id want to be no faster than 110kts at the IAF and to 90 at the FAF. It is just a real shock to look up at 200' and be zooming along at 130kts. On shorter runways he is ok with 100 but does not want me dropping any flaps until decision height.

He has about 16,000 hours and has flown everything up to regional jets. I think he believes my Dakota is a regional jet too.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that he's still in the RJ getting frustrated over that 150 that's doing 35 knots of ground speed while he's got everything hanging waiting for the approach clearance. :sigh:

I was always taught that when doing an ILS (or other precision approaches), you want to be in the landing configuration as your going past the FAF. The reason for this is that changing the configuration at 200 AGL in lousy weather is a recipe for screwing things up. There's really not much time between breaking out a minimums and landing. Instead, it's better to just continue as you've been doing for the last 4-5 miles and touch down. Also, I was taught initially to just have the first notch of flaps in. The reason for that is there's less to do in the event of a missed approach at minimums.

For non-precision approaches, it's acceptable to put the last notch in when you have the field in sight since you have more time/altitude to reconfigure, but you still want to be mostly there.

In either case, just after you break out of a cloud deck is not the time to be pulling the nose up to get slowed down to flap speed and reconfiguring the plane.

Getting back to the high speed on approach, I'll give a little bit of doubt to the CFII and suggest that maybe he's trying to save you some bucks by getting more approaches in for a given period of time. Regardless, initially you should still practice it as if you're doing it for real.
 
What's your descent rate for a non-precision approach?
 
It's because the ATC has leaned on the school to keep up with the airliners. Talk to Approach or whoever vectors you in and arrange seperation at a lower speed for you. Figure out how many more seconds the plane behind you has to have because you are slower and ask them if they can do that.
 
Another great question for your DPE and CFII... Non-precision approaches should be closer 750fpm. Or so I've been told.
 
I've always taught no more than 900' fpm.

I think that's what we used at the airline too.
 
Ravioli said:
Another great question for your DPE and CFII... Non-precision approaches should be closer 750fpm. Or so I've been told.
Click to expand...

I would say 500-700 is what I have been doing depending on the approach. My CFII has not drilled in a specific target - only to adjust for getting to the decision height in the distance required. I know that to lose 1800' in 5nm I can't be too fast or the descent just won't work.
 
Interesting, intermediate step downs I was taught 500fpm, but 1000fpm for the final drop to MDA. My instructor said get down fast and have more time to look for the airport. (Dive and drive)
 
Ya you can fire your CFI ya know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm just relating what I'm being trained. Precision ~500 should keep you on the glide slope. Non-precision ~750 to get to the min more quickly and look for the runway environment.
 
The fpm depends on the altitude to lose and the distance to lose it. But yeah, its around 500fpm for C172 type trainers flying at 70 or so. Worth the trouble to figure it out. And dont forget to add if there is a tailwind! Come down steeper if tailwind!!
 
Ravioli said:
Nate's pretty good at correcting my babble. And he has A LOT of backup ;)
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't recall doing so, so you've given it much more thought than I, whatever it was!

Lance F said:
Do his procedure in a Mooney and you'll need all 11,000'.
Click to expand...

ROFL! So true. We all get spoiled flying all these draggy airplanes that can be slowed quickly.

Or maybe that'd be the opposite and we draggy airplane pilots suffer from not being as efficient and fast as a Mooney!

A nice trip XC in a Mooney would be fun. Haven't done one of those in a long time.
 
DesertNomad said:
He says since there is 11,000' there is plenty of time to slow down and it is easier to fly it fast than slow. Maybe for him :D

In real life, Id want to be no faster than 110kts at the IAF and to 90 at the FAF. It is just a real shock to look up at 200' and be zooming along at 130kts. On shorter runways he is ok with 100 but does not want me dropping any flaps until decision height.

He has about 16,000 hours and has flown everything up to regional jets. I think he belives my Dakota is a regional jet too.
Click to expand...
So what happens when you aren't flying into a 2 mile long runway? 90 kts is good ILS speed for a spam can.. A Dakota might bleed speed off ok. Try that in a Mooney, Tiger or other slick airframe and you will be going around or breaking something..

Now.. the deflections on the needle.. lets not blame that on speed. Make small corrections.. Big boys come down that same ILS faster than 130..a nd they aren't taking the needle from stop to stop..
 
Doggtyred said:
Now.. the deflections on the needle.. lets not blame that on speed. Make small corrections.. Big boys come down that same ILS faster than 130..a nd they aren't taking the needle from stop to stop..
Click to expand...
Agreed. Target and nail the 3 degree descent rate for your groundspeed, make the same small corrections as needle movement occurs and you should have no problem in terms of coming down the ILS.

In fact a lot of pilots find flying an ILS faster than normal enhances stability and decreases needle deviations, probably due in some part to the change in momentum.
 
Doggtyred said:
So what happens when you aren't flying into a 2 mile long runway? 90 kts is good ILS speed for a spam can.. A Dakota might bleed speed off ok. Try that in a Mooney, Tiger or other slick airframe and you will be going around or breaking something..
Click to expand...

The only reason you may be asked to fly a faster approach is because you are landing a place with regular jet traffic. That's usually not a 3500ft strip somewhere in the woods.
 
Sounds way too fast. Normal for a Dakota should be around 90-100. FAA likes to see a stabilized approach. Pulling all sorts of craziness to slow the plane down from 200 ft to a normal landing seems anything but "stabilized."
 
Seems like this method carries way too much unnecessary energy crossing the threshold. That's a risk that seems to carry no benefit to take.

I've only been in and out of RNO twice. In both instances NorCal and the tower were absolutely non-stop, one of the busiest airports I've been to. Because of the wide range and mix of aircraft speeds I thought it was worse than any of my 6 times into OSH. On departure this past fall it seemed to me ATC was being extra conservative with spacing, and I wondered if the Beechcraft accident earlier this year might have something to do with that, and if it's also a factor in your instructors preference to land long?
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
Making massive configuration changes at 200' is extremely foolhardy, and training yourself to land half a mile down the runway will eventually end with a trip off the end of a shorter runway someday. If he's stuck in his regional jet mindset, ask how his company would feel about not being configured and stable by 1000'. There's a reason for doing things by the book.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. What the OP is describing is a useful tool to have in the toolbox. It just isn't something a CFII should be pushing before the instrument checkride.
 
GRG55 said:
I've only been in and out of RNO twice. In both instances NorCal and the tower were absolutely non-stop, one of the busiest airports I've been to. Because of the wide range and mix of aircraft speeds I thought it was worse than any of my 6 times into OSH.
Click to expand...

It seems that way sometimes, but when I flew into Ft. Lauderdale Exec this past May, it made Reno seem easy. We have lots of 737 traffic here but then sometimes I will get cleared to land from 20 miles out. I knew the pilot of the Beechcraft well, but I have not noticed any specific changes in ATC here as a result.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not necessarily. What the OP is describing is a useful tool to have in the toolbox. It just isn't something a CFII should be pushing before the instrument checkride.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's the kind of tool you get well AFTER you've learned to fly a basic ILS. Even then, making huge configuration changes at 200' will still increase risk, it's just a matter of your ability to accept and manage the risk at that point. You have to decide if accomplishing whatever you're trying to do with that technique is really worth it, and if you can handle it. OP can not reasonably do that at this point, nor does he need to.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
Yes, and it's the kind of tool you get well AFTER you've learned to fly a basic ILS. Even then, making huge configuration changes at 200' will still increase risk, it's just a matter of your ability to accept and manage the risk at that point. You have to decide if accomplishing whatever you're trying to do with that technique is really worth it, and if you can handle it. OP can not reasonably do that at this point, nor does he need to.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I said it should be taught after the checkride, not before.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agreed, which is why I said it should be taught after the checkride, not before.
Click to expand...
I've heard ATC instructions to "keep your speed up" during training flights and practice approaches. Pretty common some places where they do a lot of training. While I don't think it should be taught as the standard way to do it, I don't see any reason to delay a pretty common procedure and basic tool until after the checkride.

It strikes me a little like saying there's no reason to teach anything other than a standard downwind entry traffic pattern until after the checkride. Fine if you never go to a towered airport until after the checkride (didn't we recently discuss an audio of a pilot heading to a towered airport who was instructed to make a base entry and headed right to the downwind? He might simple have had a CFI who felt it want' important to teach it yet).
 
midlifeflyer said:
I've heard ATC instructions to "keep your speed up" during training flights and practice approaches. Pretty common some places where they do a lot of training. While I don't think it should be taught as the standard way to do it, I don't see any reason to delay a pretty common procedure and basic tool until after the checkride.
Click to expand...
Fair point, but in the OP's case, it sounds like his CFII is trying to get him to fly it that way as a normal procedure. That I don't agree with.
 
I agree with exposing him to a high speed ILS, but AFTER he has the normal ILS approach down. And his CFI allowing him to touchdown way down the runway, and configuring by leveling at 200' momentarily, is wrong. At 200' he should be a position to sight the runway and concentrate on landing. He should be stabilized by the FAF.
 
It also sounds like the OP has convinced himself that it's an acceptable technique for a checkride.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top