Is my CFII having me fly the ILS too fast?

MauleSkinner said:
It also sounds like the OP has convinced himself that it's an acceptable technique for a checkride.
Click to expand...

Disagree. OP has stated his concern for the way he is being taught, and I think he's in agreement with us POA experts (;)) that his CFI is teaching him wrong. That's why he's flying with a DPE, because he is concerned.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It also sounds like the OP has convinced himself that it's an acceptable technique for a checkride.
Click to expand...

No I haven't. I talked to the DPE at length about it yesterday. He is going to discuss it with the CFII. I am going out with my CFII today to shoot an ILS at 90kts into the local GA airport (old Air Force Base) and then at maybe 90-100kts into Reno if it's not full of 737s. Staying within the white arc. I am picking the speeds.

My CFII spent most of his flying career (he is in his 70s) flying a C310 into O'Hare, Atlanta and other busy Bravos. I think that influences his style.
 
Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are some airports where that IS a normal procedure, due to jet traffic. You're pretty likely to get it at Oakland, too, though it will be a bizjet rather than a 737.

Not all ILSs need to be flown that way, but the short field concerns are off base. ILS equipped 2500 foot runways are hens teeth.

Now, the interesting question is whether the same advice holds for LPVs. Those exist sometimes on much shorter runways.
 
DesertNomad said:
My CFII spent most of his flying career (he is in his 70s) flying a C310 into O'Hare, Atlanta and other busy Bravos. I think that influences his style.
Click to expand...

I flew 310s, turboprops, and jets. 24 years at an airline. I don't teach the way your CFI teaches so that's not an excuse for your CFI. Telling too is the DPE talking to your CFI about it.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
There are some airports where that IS a normal procedure, due to jet traffic..
Click to expand...

While true MAKG, this student should be taught the correct way first before the high speed approaches. And I question the techniques his CFI is teaching him (leveling at 200' for instance). I think he's getting poor training.

And, one always has the option of not accepting a high speed approach if uncomfortable with it. It may cause a delay in getting in to the airport, but it's the PIC's decision, not ATC.
 
mscard88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The level off makes no sense for an SOP. In a minimum visibility situation, that level off to bleed off speed can easily mean a need for a missed approach where continuing down from DA to the runway would mean a landing.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by stabilized at the FAF. Aside from the aircraft control issues he's experiencing, one can be just as stabilized at 130 as at a lower airspeed. If you mean stabilized in the same way as on final in a VFR traffic pattern, making no configuration changes at all, flying 6-8 miles along an ILS with full flaps at 70-80 KTS in a Dakota doesn't make much sense to me either.

At least the way most of us teach it, there are going to be some final configuration changes when breaking out. The key is to be stabilized from the FAF or GSI at a configuration that allows them to be made in a minimal way. That goes into the area of technique far more than the area of safety.
 
midlifeflyer said:
At least the way most of us teach it, there are going to be some final configuration changes when breaking out. The key is to be stabilized from the FAF or GSI at a configuration that allows them to be made in a minimal way. That goes into the area of technique far more than the area of safety.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. But it shouldn't be more than adding final flaps. Certainly not leveling off at DH to achieve the flap speed for that.
 
MAKG1 said:
Not all ILSs need to be flown that way, but the short field concerns are off base. ILS equipped 2500 foot runways are hens teeth.
Click to expand...

Isn't 3500ft the minimum for precision approaches?

Anything shorter than 6000 you are not going to share with 737s and anything shorter than 45000 you are not going to share with swept wing bizjets.
 
mscard88 said:
That's what I meant. But it shouldn't be more than adding final flaps. Certainly not leveling off at DH to achieve the flap speed for that.
Click to expand...
I have been known to level off and lower the gear at DH……but that is something I would do going into PHX or CLT during a push in VFR conditions….

If I'm going into a busy Class B in LIFR, depending on the airplane and the visibility, I'd typically chose a no or partial flap landing over changing configuration down low.
 
mscard88 said:
That's what I meant. But it shouldn't be more than adding final flaps. Certainly not leveling off at DH to achieve the flap speed for that.
Click to expand...
I actually do a bit more since I fly my approaches with no flaps (with exceptions for certain airplanes), but I kind of figured something like that :)
 
midlifeflyer said:
I actually do a bit more since I fly my approaches with no flaps (with exceptions for certain airplanes), but I kind of figured something like that :)
Click to expand...

Yeah but you're experienced. ;)

I was referring to an instrument student. Of course not saying he/she shouldn't be exposed to different approach configurations either.
 
mscard88 said:
Yeah but you're experienced. ;)

I was referring to an instrument student.
Click to expand...
:confused: :eek: It started when I was an instrument student, training in a 172. My CFII wanted me to do instrument approaches with initial flaps. For whatever (good or bad) reason lost in the mists of time, I just did not ever put them down unless he reminded me, so he finally gave up.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If I'm going into a busy Class B in LIFR, depending on the airplane and the visibility, I'd typically chose a no or partial flap landing over changing configuration down low.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Too bad many drivers are only able to land one way, i.e., XX KIAS from many miles away in only one configuration. Really sad.
 
weilke said:
Isn't 3500ft the minimum for precision approaches?

Anything shorter than 6000 you are not going to share with 737s and anything shorter than 45000 you are not going to share with swept wing bizjets.
Click to expand...
Maybe for "real" precision approaches, but I trained at an airport with an LPV into a 3000 foot runway.

And the only reason small jets don't fly there is restrictive noise abatement and the proximity of SJC. Fast turboprops do fly there. Heck, we even see them at Palo Alto (2300 feet). Small jets fly into San Carlos from time to time, and that runway is about the same length.
 
On a checkride a pilot should be flying approaches at a speed that allows them to land and get something somewhat close to book numbers on landing distance. With experience a pilot will gain awareness. Are there faster planes behind me? Are other planes waiting? Did atc ask to maintain a certain speed? What altitude am I expecting to break out? How long is the runway? Etc etc. always flying every approach the same speed is ok and you can always decline atc requests if you feel it is unsafe. But with experience a pilot will become more efficient and capable.
I've done Approaches to minimums at a hick field flying 90 knots to final, while on the other end of the spectrum I have kept seperation between two 737s going into John Wayne.
 
Hell, even I can grease a landing with 45,000ft to work with. How wide is that sucka? 1,500ft?
 
I went out today and flew a 90kt (well closer to 95) approach on the ILS into the old Air Force base., then two ILSs at 100kts into Reno (one of which ATC broke us off for a 360 about 7 miles out due to other landing traffic). All of them were much easier to transition from breakout to a landing... though I only made one landing at the end.
 
DesertNomad said:
I went out today and flew a 90kt (well closer to 95) approach on the ILS into the old Air Force base., then two ILSs at 100kts into Reno (one of which ATC broke us off for a 360 about 7 miles out due to other landing traffic). All of them were much easier to transition from breakout to a landing... though I only made one landing at the end.
Click to expand...

Any feedback on that DPE-Your CFI meeting? :D

Sounds like you were relaxed and enjoyed flying approaches at a proper airspeed.
 
:yeahthat: Hopefully the interwebs helped in their strange ways.
 
mscard88 said:
Any feedback on that DPE-Your CFI meeting? :D

Sounds like you were relaxed and enjoyed flying approaches at a proper airspeed.
Click to expand...

I doubt it happened yet (after the new year I think) but I was pretty firm with my CFI that I wanted to try these at 90kts (100kts on the Reno one to keep up a bit). It did work better and while I found holding the needles was about the same, the transition to landing was much more calm and organized than blasting out of the clouds at 200' and 50+ kts above my normal approach speed. I did the whole ILS with no flaps but I think I will try adding one notch at or a bit before the FAF so that at least on Reno's long runways, I could land with 10 degrees of flaps and have basically no transition needed when coming out of the clouds.... just pulling the throttle back a bit more (since it'll be at about 11" already) and letting it land.
 
Ravioli said:
Hell, even I can grease a landing with 45,000ft to work with. How wide is that sucka? 1,500ft?
Click to expand...

Nate would love one of those where he lives. He might even be persuaded its safe to fly a light twin off it ;) :)
 
Last edited:
DesertNomad said:
I doubt it happened yet (after the new year I think) but I was pretty firm with my CFI that I wanted to try these at 90kts (100kts on the Reno one to keep up a bit). It did work better and while I found holding the needles was about the same, the transition to landing was much more calm and organized than blasting out of the clouds at 200' and 50+ kts above my normal approach speed. I did the whole ILS with no flaps but I think I will try adding one notch at or a bit before the FAF so that at least on Reno's long runways, I could land with 10 degrees of flaps and have basically no transition needed when coming out of the clouds.... just pulling the throttle back a bit more (since it'll be at about 11" already) and letting it land.
Click to expand...

Practice with full flaps too. Might be expected on your check ride by the examiner.
 
mscard88 said:
Well, we do know he likes lettuce buns, and not half donuts...
Click to expand...

This wouldn't be the first time
Things have gone astray
Now you've thrown it all away

Now it cuts like a knife
But It feels so right
It cuts like a knife
But it feels so right

(Apologies to Bryan Adams) :cool:
 
GRG55 said:
This wouldn't be the first time
Things have gone astray
Now you've thrown it all away

Now it cuts like a knife
But It feels so right
It cuts like a knife
But it feels so right

(Apologies to Bryan Adams) :cool:
Click to expand...

Don't think he was singing about lettuce. :D

Buns, hmm, maybe...
 
In my Mooney if you don't have flaps and gear configured before you start down the glideslope, you will never again be slow enough to do so.... under 105 for flaps...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I usually consider 90-100kts a typical Cherokee ILS approach speed, but Maintain Max forward speed is a common request at many airports with an ILS, especially under IFR conditions as everyone is lining up on the ILS.

Not sure if it has been mentioned but if you happen to be decending through any icing the higher approach speed will reduce your time in the icing conditions as well as reduce the effect of the ice build up on the airplane.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
DesertNomad said:
I doubt it happened yet (after the new year I think) but I was pretty firm with my CFI that I wanted to try these at 90kts (100kts on the Reno one to keep up a bit). It did work better and while I found holding the needles was about the same, the transition to landing was much more calm and organized than blasting out of the clouds at 200' and 50+ kts above my normal approach speed. I did the whole ILS with no flaps but I think I will try adding one notch at or a bit before the FAF so that at least on Reno's long runways, I could land with 10 degrees of flaps and have basically no transition needed when coming out of the clouds.... just pulling the throttle back a bit more (since it'll be at about 11" already) and letting it land.
Click to expand...
Use go-around flaps prior to the FAF. It will also help you fly out of the DA when you go missed. And don't worry about yanking flaps to full as long as you're below Vfe. You're not a student pilot anymore.
 
DesertNomad said:
My CFII spent most of his flying career (he is in his 70s) flying a C310 into O'Hare, Atlanta and other busy Bravos. I think that influences his style.
Click to expand...

Seems like a reasonable guess. You could ask him.

midlifeflyer said:
At least the way most of us teach it, there are going to be some final configuration changes when breaking out. The key is to be stabilized from the FAF or GSI at a configuration that allows them to be made in a minimal way. That goes into the area of technique far more than the area of safety.
Click to expand...

I haven't met any CFIIs that teach reconfiguration of landing gear at breakout, though. The most common phrase I've heard is, "Gear down to go down..." which will result in needing to limit a descent to the gear extension speed.

GRG55 said:
Nate would love one of those where he lives. He might even be persuaded its safe to fly a light twin off it ;) :)
Click to expand...

LOL! Light twins suck performance-wise, but with brainpower the risks can be lowered. Too many people think "two engines is safer!" :)

Fearless Tower said:
It's ALL about the Blue Donut!
Click to expand...

GRG55 said:
Call me a sceptic, until Sac Arrow weighs in on proper Blue Donut etiquette.
Click to expand...

I want to see a Blue Donut cut in half with the other half left languishing in the donut box! :)

Anyone have a Dremel tool? Let's hit the garage shop and do some cutting in the new year!
 
GRG55 said:
Nate would love one of those where he lives. He might even be persuaded its safe to fly a light twin off it ;) :)
Click to expand...

Or maybe he'll even take an intersection departure with 15,000 remaining.
 
denverpilot said:
I haven't met any CFIIs that teach reconfiguration of landing gear at breakout, though. The most common phrase I've heard is, "Gear down to go down..." which will result in needing to limit a descent to the gear extension speed.
Click to expand...
Nor have I. Not one. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top