no flaps landing from ILS approach

[Captain]

The wing changes in a very predictable manner.

I understand there are situations where you don't want to add flaps.

But a no flaps landing in a 172 after every approach? They land much better with flaps...

Personally, my preferred method would be to be stabilized IMC by 1,000' AGL and that means on speed, configured with gear and flaps in landing position and checklists done. That last 1,000' is all about flying and landing or going missed...nothing else. But that's me.

 

[Jaybird180]

I frankly don't think it matters at all, and changing flap settings with runway assured is about as as simple as any maneuver pilots are required to perform. But when the edict came down that flap changes were not permitted since they violated the FAA's "stabilized approach" concept, we had no choice but to comply. Fortunately, this idiocy didn't last long and we soon received a memo that "clarification of interpretation" had been issued by FSDO and we were free to continue teaching and testing the same procedure as before. In the meantime, however, we knew that making book (landing distance) numbers required full flaps, so the only way to get them out and pass the check-ride was to extend them prior to FAF.

Events of this nature are the reason I answer every question regarding "what the FAA wants/thinks/likes/recommends" with "who at the FAA?" Some of us still remember when the FAA decided that altitude is controlled by the yoke and speed by the throttle.

That's what I teach. Just enough flaps to get the big pitch trim change out of the way before you start the final segment, and then drop the rest when you commit to land, just as you'd do on half a mile final or so in the VFR pattern. But changing configuration between GS intercept and the decision-to-land point just makes the approach that much more difficult, and you can play with that fancy stuff after you have both the rating and some wet-wing time.

I'm guessing Ron is saying that we're now cleared to do it the right way

 

[wabower]

That's the method you'll find published in most training organization SOPs, and what we taught until the looney-tunes Fed changed the rules.

A case can be made for practicing full-flap approaches with beginners because it allows a more stable environment throughout the approach with nothing to do after FAF except FTFA.

QUOTE=Jaybird180;919636]I'm guessing Ron is saying that we're now cleared to do it the right way[/QUOTE]

 

[dell30rb]

Personally, my preferred method would be to be stabilized IMC by 1,000' AGL and that means on speed, configured with gear and flaps in landing position and checklists done. That last 1,000' is all about flying and landing or going missed...nothing else. But that's me.

Does not work for me.. I don't like flying ILS approaches at 70 kts, which is the speed my airplane comfortably flies with landing flaps out

 

[wabower]

Why ?

Does not work for me.. I don't like flying ILS approaches at 70 kts, which is the speed my airplane comfortably flies with landing flaps out

 

[dell30rb]

Why ?

Well your question was not specific enough... Why don't I like flying approaches at 70kts with flaps out? Takes too long...

I could fly at 90kts with the flaps out but that's hard on the plane. Max FE is 85kts on the 152

 

[wabower]

What type plane? Can't remember any with 70 knot max.

Its over max flap extension speed for one..

 

[dell30rb]

What type plane? Can't remember any with 70 knot max.

I see what you are getting at. 70 kts is just a bit slow for me when the plane will fly them all day long at 90kts. I think the controllers at KRDU where I am based would have a cow if I was flying approaches at 70 knots. I get enough 360's on IMC days as is.

Also, this is a small reason, but its very easy to capture the glide slope at 90kts. When I am about .5 dot below the glide slope. All I have to do is richen the mixture, pull carb heat, reduce power to 1800 rpm, and trim up about 3-4 knobs.

And another reason. Its easier to initiate a missed approach at 90kts, no flaps. Just firewall it and pitch for climb.

 

[Captain]

We're only talking about the last 1,000 feet of an approach. That's 3 miles of flying.

At 70 kts it takes 2.57 minutes to cover that 3 miles.
At 90 kts it takes 2 minutes to cover the 3 miles.

We're talking about a difference of .57 minutes or just over 30 seconds of flying. Doesn't seem that big a deal to me. I'd still recommend being fully configured for landing by 1,000' when IMC. The pros seem to significantly outweigh the cons.

 

[tiger]

Going missed seems not unlikely if the weather is so bad that you're worried about having time to drop full flaps, and some planes, in some conditions, don't climb very well with full flaps. Isn't there an argument that's it's better to be configured for the easiest possible missed than for the easiest possible landing?

 

[dell30rb]

I'd still recommend being fully configured for landing by 1,000' when IMC. The pros seem to significantly outweigh the cons.

How bout a botched missed approach? Its rare to go missed and a known fact that average pilots don't practice it enough. Plenty of GA pilots wad up go arounds in VMC because they mis-manage their flaps.

Recently an experienced local 135 pilot put a baron into the side of a house on a low IMC day. The final NTSB report is not out yet, but all signs point to a botched missed approach.

 

[dell30rb]

Going missed seems not unlikely if the weather is so bad that you're worried about having time to drop full flaps, and some planes, in some conditions, don't climb very well with full flaps. Isn't there an argument that's it's better to be configured for the easiest possible missed than for the easiest possible landing?

 

[Captain]

Well by that logic we should fly the approach with the gear up too.

I do agree though that pilots don't practice going missed enough. I wasn't really comfortably with it until I had around 6,000 hours or so. Around that time I changed the way I approached them. I made it a 'flow'. Power, flaps, gear. That get's me climbing and now I can take my time cleaning up and flying the procedure. But it's that first bit. Once you get the first step down then the rest seems to flow much more naturally and it made a world of difference to me.

Now going missed is a non-event for me. I know it sounds stupid, but making that initial flow...as simple and obvious as it is...made all the difference for me.


(btw, I'm on some pain meds for a bad back right now. I think it's making me extra 'chatty' today.)

 

[dell30rb]

Well by that logic we should fly the approach with the gear up too.

A little different.. sucking up the gear won't cause your plane to lose a bunch of lift all at once and considerably raise the stall speed.

And you don't need to retract gear carefully in increments.

Obviously things change from aircraft to aircraft but I think there are a lot of good reasons for flying a no flaps approach in a trainer like a 172.

 

[Palmpilot]

Max FE is 85kts on the 152

Same for the 172N.

 

[Palmpilot]

We're only talking about the last 1,000 feet of an approach. That's 3 miles of flying.

At 70 kts it takes 2.57 minutes to cover that 3 miles.
At 90 kts it takes 2 minutes to cover the 3 miles.

We're talking about a difference of .57 minutes or just over 30 seconds of flying. Doesn't seem that big a deal to me. I'd still recommend being fully configured for landing by 1,000' when IMC. The pros seem to significantly outweigh the cons.

I think part of the problem with flying instrument approaches at 70 knots is that it's out of the ordinary, so people are not expecting it. It also increases the speed differential with other aircraft. Those factors could make things more difficult for controllers, and for pilots following me on the approach. Since I was trained to do it at 90 knots and am used to it, I really don't see a need to change it.

 

[tiger]

The impact of wind becomes more significant as you slow, too. With a 20kt direct headwind, the hypothetical 3NM segment takes more than a minute longer to complete at 70kts than at 90kts.

 

[Captain]

I think part of the problem with flying instrument approaches at 70 knots is that it's out of the ordinary, so people are not expecting it. It also increases the speed differential with other aircraft. Those factors could make things more difficult for controllers, and for pilots following me on the approach. Since I was trained to do it at 90 knots and am used to it, I really don't see a need to change it.

Well, even more than I preach being stabilized by 1,000' IMC I preach to make approaches consistant. So If that's how you do it (full flaps down low) then that's how I'd keep it.

Echoing that...I've learned that this forum is NOT a good place to get preachy on how others should fly. In that spirit I'd just like to point out that my comments are just meant for theoretical discussion of principles. I'm not trying to get anyone to fly any differently.

The impact of wind becomes more significant as you slow, too. With a 20kt direct headwind, the hypothetical 3NM segment takes more than a minute longer to complete at 70kts than at 90kts.

It's actually a tad under a minute difference. It's 3.6 minutes at 50 kts over the ground vs. 2.57 at 70 kts over the ground. But still a valid point.

 

[Jaybird180]

I find in the 172SP very little difference in pitch change 20-30 deg. 20 deg, I don't feel like I'm dragging it in, so I use that until I have landing assured. I think I forgot to go flaps 30 once, but it didn't make a difference.

 

[dell30rb]

I find in the 172SP very little difference in pitch change 20-30 deg. 20 deg, I don't feel like I'm dragging it in, so I use that until I have landing assured. I think I forgot to go flaps 30 once, but it didn't make a difference.

IMO the big change is from 10-20deg flaps. 20-30 just adds more drag and does not require much re-trimming. Feels like putting on the brakes.

As cap'n said the key is to do it consistently.

 

[TMetzinger]

On the missed I was taught...
Cram the throttles and start building energy.
Climb - pitch for the climb...toga pitch.
Clean - gear and flaps as directed by the flight manual.
Cool. Adjust pitch power for engine limits.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[wabower]

I think pilots tend to confuse the workload and required hand speed of missed approaches with those required for balked (rejected) landings during which things happen faster and at lower altitude.

If a pilot initiates the miss at 200' and a half-mile from the end at 1.2-1.3 VSO, the procedure is simple and unhurried, and in most airplanes is different from a balk insofar as application of power and flap management are concerned. If full power equates to climb power in the airplane being flown, the power management is the same. The "slap-up slap down" method for reducing landing flaps to approach flaps (that are also appropriate for initial climb) in Cessnas is dog simple, takes no more than a couple of seconds and requires no looking other than to confirm that the handle has stopped at the approach detent.

Going missed seems not unlikely if the weather is so bad that you're worried about having time to drop full flaps, and some planes, in some conditions, don't climb very well with full flaps. Isn't there an argument that's it's better to be configured for the easiest possible missed than for the easiest possible landing?

 

[Morne]

Wow - great thread! Since I just shot my first ILS approaches today it was very interesting to read.

In my 182 I fly the approach at 90 knots and no flaps. Seems to work fine. The runways with ILS are so long that a no flaps landing is no worry at all. Mind you, I really prefer to land with full 40' flaps no matter how much pavement I have, but then I learned on a smaller strip.

I guess I really don't understand why folks are so twisted up about it. Whatever configuring you need to do to work your approach speed is fine. My CFII teaches others in a 172 and he has them fly the approaches at 90 knots as well. If you were in a bigger/faster bird then I could see using a notch of flaps to hit 90 knots but in my 182 all that does is require more fuel burn to do the same speed. My trim wheel programs the speed just fine, thanks. And to address carb ice, well that's what carb heat is for, now isn't it?

As to getting comfortable going missed, is that a real concern? I find going missed to be just as natural as anything.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Wow - great thread! Since I just shot my first ILS approaches today it was very interesting to read.
As to getting comfortable going missed, is that a real concern? I find going missed to be just as natural as anything.

Not if you are set up for it and ahead of your airplane. IMHO the key to flying instruments is consistent procedures. Brief the approach to yourself everytime. Assume you will fly the missed, everytime And when you practice fly full procedures and the missed everytime.

 

[dell30rb]

Wow - great thread! Since I just shot my first ILS approaches today it was very interesting to read.

In my 182 I fly the approach at 90 knots and no flaps. Seems to work fine.

Hey maybe ol denverpilot should give that a try in his 182.

In a 152, 172,182,206.. Very easy to fly an approach at 90kts, no flaps. How is that for consistency?


Like most on here, i fly what is taught. 90kts no flaps works for a 152, 172 182 206 pa28.....

 

[j1b3h0]

Clearly, opinions vary. Folks who fly IFR every day - in a jet - are compelled by the FAA to embrace the 'stabilized approach' concept. The goal for us it to be completely configured, gear, flaps, and engines spooled up and on speed by 1,500ft agl or so. From the flight levels, we mostly try to descend at idle thrust, burning as little fuel as possible, until we have to start extending flaps...which we try to postpone as long as we can get away with, once again for economy. At 210kts, (about as slow as we can go without flaps) the 737 will glide for miles and miles. But once the airplane gets completely configured, it's an anvil festooned with fishing weights. When the power comes up, we burn more fuel (per hour) than does cruising at .79M at altitude. We can shoot hand-flown approaches, with a HUD and autothrottles down to 600RVR and 50ft. We don't concern ourselves with approach lights because we're past them by the missed approach point. And if we have to conduct a missed approach from the DA, we may touch the runway...quite entertaining.

As someone will surely point out, it has little to do flap selection in a 172. But if I were going to shoot an ILS that is right down to mins, (in a 172)you know, 1,800RVR, I will be completely prepared and configured for landing, at a landing approach speed by a minimum of 1,000ft above the TDZE. The reason we do approaches is, ostensibly to land. I get the airplane ready to land. The tighter the approach, the more essential that is. Remember, you'll probably be on the gages down to 100ft...is that really the time you want to be adding flaps?

On the other hand, it the weather is 1200ovc and 5mi, and you find ATC wants 120kts down the pipe, you can scream in there like a meteor, so long as you know when to hit the brakes.

 

[dell30rb]

configured for landing, at a landing approach speed by a minimum of 1,000ft above the TDZE. The reason we do approaches is, ostensibly to land. I get the airplane ready to land.

Many times I fly the entire traffic pattern under 1000' above tdze

 

[j1b3h0]

Many times I fly the entire traffic pattern under 1000' above tdze

Me too...in VFR conditions. But the reason to be completely set up for landing on a tight intrument approach is so you can concentrate on flying the airplane. Get the chores done first, then focus on the approach. Hey, one man's opinion.

 

[denverpilot]

Most circle-to-land approaches are less than 1000'.

 

[spiderweb]

Whats your opinion? Breaking out between 200-500agl in a skyhawk or 152, is slowing and adding flaps a distracting and dangerous thing? Lets assume good visibility, daytime.

In those simple aircraft, one should be able to put at least a notch or two of flaps out at DA and deal with it nicely.

 

[spiderweb]

I learned at a class B airport. It doesn't matter what you're flying--you will get chewed out if you don't fly your approach at 90 KIAS or more.

Thus, I learned to fly to DA at 90 KIAS with no flaps. Upon breaking out, power all the way back, flaps 30 or 40, and fly short final at 65 KIAS.

Yes, it is a big change, but it is only ONE change. If practiced, it is not hard to do. Indeed, I probably did about 100 of those!

In the Saratoga, it was different. Since she flies fast, going down the ILS with gear and first notch of flaps at 100 KIAS was easy (and one could go much faster, too). After that, if one wanted to add another notch, it wasn't a big change.

 

[Captain]

Most circle-to-land approaches are less than 1000'.

Every type rating I have and every OpSpec I've operated under limits circling approaches to 1,000' AGL. 'Circ VMC Only'

Not sure why the Feds require that. Maybe it costs more in training to get that removed? Dunno.

 

[Alexb2000]

One low circling approach at night I went back into a low(er) cloud. I scared the crap out of myself. I avoid them if at all possible.

 

[denverpilot]

Every type rating I have and every OpSpec I've operated under limits circling approaches to 1,000' AGL. 'Circ VMC Only'

Not sure why the Feds require that. Maybe it costs more in training to get that removed? Dunno.

Probably want you guys to remain in controlled airspace.

Nobody supposedly zipping by in really bad marginal VFR in Class G. They want you guys to have a split second longer to see and avoid.

 

[Everskyward]

Every type rating I have and every OpSpec I've operated under limits circling approaches to 1,000' AGL. 'Circ VMC Only'

Not me. I don't have a limitation on circling approaches on any type rating. In fact we are trained and tested on them every recurrent. We just need to abide by the published circling minimums for the approach speed.

 

[j1b3h0]

Every type rating I have and every OpSpec I've operated under limits circling approaches to 1,000' AGL. 'Circ VMC Only'

Not sure why the Feds require that. Maybe it costs more in training to get that removed? Dunno.

None of mine are limited, but I don't have that many (5). The airlines and the FAA know that statistically, circle to land approached are frought with perils. I can remember doing a checkride in a SA-227, in the late '80s, during which I had to do a circling approach, and pump the gear down...while in the circle. I thought this is insane. Within six months a Metroliner landed gear-up during a similar ride. The training deptartment reconsidered.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Not me. I don't have a limitation on circling approaches on any type rating. In fact we are trained and tested on them every recurrent. We just need to abide by the published circling minimums for the approach speed.

The only type I have the circling VMC limitation on is the B-757/B-767.