Precision approach now breaking out

[Jaybird180]

Youre on a precision approach and break out. You have the runway in sight and there are glide lights on the runway. Which is your primary source of glide slope information, needles, lights or mark 1 I-ball?

 

[jesse]

All of the above.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

What Jesse said.

 

[alfadog]

Just training myself but once the hood comes off I am done with the needles and I never use the lights anyway.

 

[Jaybird180]

All of the above.

Primary?

 

[gismo]

If I had to pick one over the others (they're all important as Jesse said) I'd go with the VASI/PAPI because that works while your eyes are outside and it's not so overly sensitive as the GS needle near the touchdown zone. From the DA on down you have to "scan" the view out the windshield along with the instruments while gradually decreasing the time spend eyes inside and increasing the time looking out.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm with Lance.

 

[gismo]

Just training myself but once the hood comes off I am done with the needles and I never use the lights anyway.

You will if you ever get a chance to fly an ILS with the weather near or at visibility minimums. Practice approaches under the hood cannot come close to simulating the transition from gauges to visual that exists in poor visibility.

 

[alfadog]

You will if you ever get a chance to fly an ILS with the weather near or at visibility minimums. Practice approaches under the hood cannot come close to simulating the transition from gauges to visual that exists in poor visibility.

Makes sense.

 

[EppyGA]

You will if you ever get a chance to fly an ILS with the weather near or at visibility minimums. Practice approaches under the hood cannot come close to simulating the transition from gauges to visual that exists in poor visibility.

I never got any actual during training, always under the hood. On the way down to Sun-N-Fun I got my first approach in actual. We broke out at 400-500' agl and son of a gun there was the runway. I did have my wife watching out the front for lights while I kept focused on the scan and the needles.

 

[wabower]

+1, and wish you had them at some of the airports that are known as being dark-holes even with the required lighting for ILS approaches.

You will if you ever get a chance to fly an ILS with the weather near or at visibility minimums. Practice approaches under the hood cannot come close to simulating the transition from gauges to visual that exists in poor visibility.

 

[poadeleted20]

I never got any actual during training, always under the hood.

Sometimes that's because there is no flyable instrument weather, and that's the way things go sometimes. Sometimes that's because your instructor chooses not to fly in flyable instrument weather, and that's a sad situation.

On the way down to Sun-N-Fun I got my first approach in actual. We broke out at 400-500' agl and son of a gun there was the runway. I did have my wife watching out the front for lights while I kept focused on the scan and the needles.

That is real CRM. Well done!

 

[matthammer]

Just training myself but once the hood comes off I am done with the needles and I never use the lights anyway.

Breaking out in poor visibility, especially if it's at night, I wouldn't be so quick to forget about those needles. I'll make an exception to that if you're following a visual glideslope indicator down to the runway, though.

 

[SCCutler]

+1, and wish you had them at some of the airports that are known as being dark-holes even with the required lighting for ILS approaches.

New Orleans Lakefront, from the north... it sucks in flawless VFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

Breaking out in poor visibility, especially if it's at night, I wouldn't be so quick to forget about those needles. I'll make an exception to that if you're following a visual glideslope indicator down to the runway, though.

I think the most important thing about breaking out on a precision approach is nothing.



Yes, nothing.

You're already on a stablized path to the runway in both the vertical and horizontal planes, and if you do nothing, you'll hit the runway right in the touchdown zone blocks. So, be very wary of doing anything much in the way of pitch/power changes until you reach the runway threshold when you ease the power for the flare. If as you hit DH you leave the power where it is and just extend the last flaps while holding pitch attitude steady (i.e., don't let the nose rise or fall with the flaps change), you'll probably find it puts you right where you want to be in terms of speed, height, and attitude to start the flare and land in the proper touchdown zone.

 

[bbchien]

Lookup AAR 04/02. The most important tool focused on the PAPI. I'm with Lance on this one. So is NTSB.

 

[denverpilot]

Just training myself but once the hood comes off I am done with the needles and I never use the lights anyway.

Setting yourself up for trouble.

As I unwittingly learned on my first night flying with Jesse, the clouds and fog can re-envelop the aircraft after you go visual. (It didn't happen to us, but the RVR was "thicker" at the other end of the runway. The fog wasn't consistent and could have triggered a go-around at the last second.)

Don't build the habit of "hood's off, I won't go IMC anymore". Real clouds don't work that way.

Think "circling approach to land at night just at minimums" for an even more realistic example. Little bit of low-hanging scud between your circle and the runway and now you can't judge where to start descending with the "runway assured", you're going back on the needles and climbing out because the runway completely disappeared even though you were below "hood off" altitude.

We got enough low stuff that week for me to see exactly how low time Instrument pilots paint themselves into corners. That "hood off, I am done with the needles" could bite hard in real weather with lumpy clouds.

 

[Bob Noel]

Youre on a precision approach and break out. You have the runway in sight and there are glide lights on the runway. Which is your primary source of glide slope information, needles, lights or mark 1 I-ball?

Primary: glide lights
secondary: needles and Mark I eyeballs.

The scan doesn't stop just because you break out. Of course, if you break out at minimums, that can be different than breaking out at 600' agl.

 

[alfadog]

Setting yourself up for trouble.

As I unwittingly learned on my first night flying with Jesse, the clouds and fog can re-envelop the aircraft after you go visual. (It didn't happen to us, but the RVR was "thicker" at the other end of the runway. The fog wasn't consistent and could have triggered a go-around at the last second.)

Don't build the habit of "hood's off, I won't go IMC anymore". Real clouds don't work that way.

Think "circling approach to land at night just at minimums" for an even more realistic example. Little bit of low-hanging scud between your circle and the runway and now you can't judge where to start descending with the "runway assured", you're going back on the needles and climbing out because the runway completely disappeared even though you were below "hood off" altitude.

We got enough low stuff that week for me to see exactly how low time Instrument pilots paint themselves into corners. That "hood off, I am done with the needles" could bite hard in real weather with lumpy clouds.

As I mention above, the point is taken.

One difference in training vs. real life, I imagine, is, in training, you usually pull the hood at minimum and there really is not much to do beyond configure the airplane and land. IRL, you could break out at 800 feet in crap vis and would want to continue riding the GS.

So yes, the point is taken.

 

[Captain]

I think the most important thing about breaking out on a precision approach is nothing.



Yes, nothing.

You're already on a stablized path to the runway in both the vertical and horizontal planes, and if you do nothing, you'll hit the runway right in the touchdown zone blocks. So, be very wary of doing anything much in the way of pitch/power changes until you reach the runway threshold when you ease the power for the flare. If as you hit DH you leave the power where it is and just extend the last flaps while holding pitch attitude steady (i.e., don't let the nose rise or fall with the flaps change), you'll probably find it puts you right where you want to be in terms of speed, height, and attitude to start the flare and land in the proper touchdown zone.

Step 1: Do nothing. Check, I agree with the premise.

Step 2: Extend flaps as you 'hit DH'. ahh, what? You just said 'do nothing'. That's not nothing...that's something.


I don't know what plane you're talking about, but why wouldn't you be setup in a landing configuration WAY before the DH? You just made a great point about not wanting to upset the apple cart by making changes and then you wipe all that away by saying 'drop the last notch of flaps at the DH'.

Also, the DH can be 200' AGL to 4,000' AGL. Same technique?

 

[poadeleted20]

Step 1: Do nothing. Check, I agree with the premise.

Step 2: Extend flaps as you 'hit DH'. ahh, what? You just said 'do nothing'. That's not nothing...that's something.

If you haven't broken out before DH, you are already exectuting the missed when you hit it. If you have, then you did nothing when you broke out and waited until DH to configure for landing. Up until DH, you are not committed to land.

I don't know what plane you're talking about,

Light piston planes generally.

but why wouldn't you be setup in a landing configuration WAY before the DH?

Too much drag, not enough power.

You just made a great point about not wanting to upset the apple cart by making changes and then you wipe all that away by saying 'drop the last notch of flaps at the DH'.

We're not talking transport category turbine aircraft here. If you review the FAA's guidance on the stabilized approach, you'll see they have differing guidance on how to conduct them for light planes vs big jets.

Also, the DH can be 200' AGL to 4,000' AGL. Same technique?

Obviously not. If DH is 4000 AGL on a precision approach (and that would be a new one on me -- got an example?), then you'd want to hold landing flaps until half a mile or so from the threshold.

 

[EppyGA]

Sometimes that's because there is no flyable instrument weather, and that's the way things go sometimes. Sometimes that's because your instructor chooses not to fly in flyable instrument weather, and that's a sad situation.

In my case the only times it might have been actual there were thunderstorms moving or forecast to move in and we canceled. It really didn't matter to me either way so it was no big deal.

 

[EppyGA]

I think the most important thing about breaking out on a precision approach is nothing.



Yes, nothing.

You're already on a stablized path to the runway in both the vertical and horizontal planes, and if you do nothing, you'll hit the runway right in the touchdown zone blocks. So, be very wary of doing anything much in the way of pitch/power changes until you reach the runway threshold when you ease the power for the flare. If as you hit DH you leave the power where it is and just extend the last flaps while holding pitch attitude steady (i.e., don't let the nose rise or fall with the flaps change), you'll probably find it puts you right where you want to be in terms of speed, height, and attitude to start the flare and land in the proper touchdown zone.

When I took my check ride the DPE told me this in a discussion we had. It sure made sense. The way he put it was it would be much better to fly the approach, even in 0/0 or close to it than run out of fuel up in the clouds.

 

[wsuffa]

New Orleans Lakefront, from the north... it sucks in flawless VFR.

Try it in IFR at minimums. There's no difference between cloud gray and Pontchartrain gray. Except for the approach lights. BTDT

 

[John Collins]

Even though the subject is breaking out on a precision approach, the same techniques should apply to an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) such as LPV or LNAV/VNAV. However, there are differences on many of the APV approaches in that they don't necessarily have approach lights or a VGSI (Visual Glideslope Indicator) available which makes the visual segment more challenging and often requires greater visibility to safely conduct the approach.

LNAV approaches where you have an advisory glidepath available are very different animals as part 91 operators can't treat the MDA as a DA and the visual segment can have obstacles that penetrate the advisory glidepath. Following the advisory glidepath below the MDA can ruin your entire day or night. On these approaches a VGSI is enormously helpful (often required for nigh time use and the VGSI slope does not necessarily match the Visual Descent Angle) and one should not fly below the visual glidepath under any circumstances, but even more so on a non precision approach. Without a VGSI, you have to be able to see the obstacles to avoid them and must keep the runway environment insight at all times starting from the decision to descend from the MDA to touchdown.

 

[gismo]

Even though the subject is breaking out on a precision approach, the same techniques should apply to an Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) such as LPV or LNAV/VNAV. However, there are differences on many of the APV approaches in that they don't necessarily have approach lights or a VGSI (Visual Glideslope Indicator) available which makes the visual segment more challenging and often requires greater visibility to safely conduct the approach.

LNAV approaches where you have an advisory glidepath available are very different animals as part 91 operators can't treat the MDA as a DA and the visual segment can have obstacles that penetrate the advisory glidepath. Following the advisory glidepath below the MDA can ruin your entire day or night. On these approaches a VGSI is enormously helpful (often required for nigh time use and the VGSI slope does not necessarily match the Visual Descent Angle) and one should not fly below the visual glidepath under any circumstances, but even more so on a non precision approach. Without a VGSI, you have to be able to see the obstacles to avoid them and must keep the runway environment insight at all times starting from the decision to descend from the MDA to touchdown.

Prolly worth noting that the vertical guidance on a LPV or LNAV/VNAV doesn't get overly sensitive below DA like the ILS GS does. For that reason and the common lack of visual slope guidance found on back woods GPS approaches I pay more attention to the GS needle beyond DA on such approaches, especially if there's no visual glideslope (VASI, PAPI, etc).

 

[gismo]

When I took my check ride the DPE told me this in a discussion we had. It sure made sense. The way he put it was it would be much better to fly the approach, even in 0/0 or close to it than run out of fuel up in the clouds.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting but I'm pretty sure your DPE didn't recommend continuing an approach beyond DA regardless of the weather unless you truly were so low on fuel that a diversion to somewhere with better weather wasn't feasible (in which case you already made some significant mistakes). Also, from simulated IC practice I can say that flying an ILS to the runway in 0/0 conditions isn't for the faint of heart and it's not something I'd recommend trying for real if you've never practiced it before (I'll grant that there's an advantage to crashing on an airfield vs into someones house though). A trick I learned is to use the autopilot in pitch hold mode (rather than coupled) during the descent prior and beyond DA coupled with a commanded pitch up to +5 to 6 degrees when your altimeter (or better yet your WAAS GPS) indicates you're about 20 ft in the air. If you fly the approach coupled all the way to the runway there's a good chance the autopilot will generate significant pitch excursions close to the ground and flying fully coupled to DA and then hand flying is likely to induce unwanted pitch changes as well when you disconnect.

 

[flyingron]

I'm with Ron. Of course I fly a plane that only needs 900' of ground roll and most runways with ILSs are going to be in the range of 5000' so even if I blow past the Fixed Distance markers I'm still got time to stop by the end.

Of course, float much either so chopping what's left of the power right at round out puts her down pretty nicely.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I think the most important thing about breaking out on a precision approach is nothing.



Yes, nothing.

You're already on a stablized path to the runway in both the vertical and horizontal planes, and if you do nothing, you'll hit the runway right in the touchdown zone blocks. So, be very wary of doing anything much in the way of pitch/power changes until you reach the runway threshold when you ease the power for the flare. If as you hit DH you leave the power where it is and just extend the last flaps while holding pitch attitude steady (i.e., don't let the nose rise or fall with the flaps change), you'll probably find it puts you right where you want to be in terms of speed, height, and attitude to start the flare and land in the proper touchdown zone.

That close to the TDZ the needles are jittery as all get out, and approach lights are a help, but my primary activity upon breaking out in LIFR is "attentive inactivity" if I have done it right up to that point, short of a wing falling off, the landing is made.

 

[Captain]

If you haven't broken out before DH, you are already executing the missed when you hit it. If you have, then you did nothing when you broke out and waited until DH to configure for landing. Up until DH, you are not committed to land.

A DH is just that, the height where you make a decision. There is no reason to be already executing a missed approach at that point. Get to the DH, look outside and decide. If you see lights then continue to 100 HAT, if you see a runway then land. If not then go missed. If your personal minimums are such that you want to decide before the missed then fine. Add what you want and make that the DH. Procedure is still the same, make a decision AT the decision height.

Light piston planes generally.

Okay, but you have to admit changing configuration goes directly against what you said...'do nothing'. BTW, I still think the 'do nothing' part is great advise.

Too much drag, not enough power.

?? A light GA plane can't maintain a 3 degree glide slope with full flaps? Simply not enough power for all that drag? I've never heard of that.

We're not talking transport category turbine aircraft here. If you review the FAA's guidance on the stabilized approach, you'll see they have differing guidance on how to conduct them for light planes vs big jets.

I did not know that

Obviously not. If DH is 4000 AGL on a precision approach (and that would be a new one on me -- got an example?), then you'd want to hold landing flaps until half a mile or so from the threshold.

I was giving a range. 4,000' is extreme and I have no example. Not the point though. The point is the DH does change and there are many approaches where it's several hundred feet. Your advice was to key the flaps off a DH and I'm just pointing out that's not exactly a fixed point. Seems relavent as you were also saying that flap extension was the drag you were going to use to slow in the flare.


I'm certainly not going to tell you how to fly a C172. I'm just referring to a technique that I think could be better. Be stabilized by being fully configured by 1,000' AGL. When you're AT the DH make a decision (or your adjusted DH for your personal limits). If you go missed then add power, take out that notch of flaps and once a positive rate is established retract the gear. Clean up the rest of the flaps as you accelerate.

What's wrong with that technique? I see a lot of benefit to that over the way you described it. Just an observation. Seriously not trying to start a fight.

(I added that last sentence just to re-assure everyone that I have learned from past posts...I'm not going down that worn road anymore)

: )

 

[gismo]

Okay, but you have to admit changing configuration goes directly against what you said...'do nothing'. BTW, I still think the 'do nothing' part is great advise.

?? A light GA plane can't maintain a 3 degree glide slope with full flaps? Simply not enough power for all that drag? I've never heard of that.

Flying a twin I like to leave full flaps off until I'm below 500 AGL and have the runway in sight. But for reasons similar to yours I normally just leave approach flaps on if I'm at or below 200 AGL when the runway comes into view. While the plane can maintain a 3° descent on one engine with full flaps and gear hanging out this does require nearly full power if a prop is windmilling and even with the prop feathered the ability to execute a go-around will be seriously compromised with full flaps close to the ground. I don't know if avoiding full flaps on a LIFR approach in a twin is actually safer but it seems likely.

 

[poadeleted20]

A DH is just that, the height where you make a decision.

There's really no decision to make at DH -- if you haven't seen the runway environment by the time you reach it, you're gone. That's all I'm saying.

There is no reason to be already executing a missed approach at that point. Get to the DH, look outside and decide.

Not how the rules read. In order to continue past DH, you must have already seen the lights. When you reach DH, you go unless you've already made the decision to continue down.

Okay, but you have to admit changing configuration goes directly against what you said...'do nothing'. BTW, I still think the 'do nothing' part is great advise.

No, I don't. The question was what to do at break-out, not at the later "commit to land" point. You may break out well above DH, and there's no reason to go changing things at that point.

?? A light GA plane can't maintain a 3 degree glide slope with full flaps? Simply not enough power for all that drag? I've never heard of that.

Didn't say that, but in many cases the amount of power is extremely large and in some conditions of weight and DA it's not even possible. Let's face it -- nobody's going to fly 40 flaps all the way in from the outer marker in a 172.

I was giving a range. 4,000' is extreme and I have no example. Not the point though. The point is the DH does change and there are many approaches where it's several hundred feet. Your advice was to key the flaps off a DH and I'm just pointing out that's not exactly a fixed point. Seems relavent as you were also saying that flap extension was the drag you were going to use to slow in the flare.

OK, I'll by that. Let's say at the "commit to land" point, which may be 200-400 AGL depending on the situation, but not before breaking out.

I'm certainly not going to tell you how to fly a C172. I'm just referring to a technique that I think could be better. Be stabilized by being fully configured by 1,000' AGL.

That's great for transport category turbine aircraft, and more or less what the FAA recommends for them. But that has to be scaled down for light piston airplanes.

When you're AT the DH make a decision (or your adjusted DH for your personal limits).

Again, at decision height you start the missed if you haven't already decided to continue. You don't wait to DH to start looking and thinking about what to do.

Of course, I see pilots fly to DH, look up, and start hunting for the runway all the time, and it's something I have to get them to change if they want their IPC or IR test endorsement signed by me. It's also why I always pull the hood at least 50-100 feet above DH in training if I want them to continue to the runway so they have time to determine that they have the runway environment before arriving at DH. If I wait to DH to do that, they should already have started their missed and shouldn't then be looking out front as they sink through DH without having identified any of the Magic 10 items.

 

[poadeleted20]

Flying a twin I like to leave full flaps off until I'm below 500 AGL and have the runway in sight. But for reasons similar to yours I normally just leave approach flaps on if I'm at or below 200 AGL when the runway comes into view. While the plane can maintain a 3° descent on one engine with full flaps and gear hanging out this does require nearly full power if a prop is windmilling and even with the prop feathered the ability to execute a go-around will be seriously compromised with full flaps close to the ground. I don't know if avoiding full flaps on a LIFR approach in a twin is actually safer but it seems likely.

When flying a light twin (or anything else) in LIFR conditions (by definition, less than 300-1), I want to do everything I can to ensure I don't have to go missed or, worse, go around from below DH. I do that by making the landing as "normal" as possible, and that means using the same flap setting I use on any day VFR landing. I believe in the Law of Exercise, and it doesn't make sense to me to do something differently than usual when conditions are the most stacked against you (low ceiling, low vis, wet runway, etc).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Again, at decision height you start the missed if you haven't already decided to continue. You don't wait to DH to start looking and thinking about what to do.

...

If I wait to DH to do that, they should already have started their missed and shouldn't then be looking out front as they sink through DH without having identified any of the Magic 10 items.

That isn't exactly what the definition of "Decision Height" is according to FAR 1.1. I was always taught that AT decision height, you look up and "decide" whether to go around or land. And if the decision was to go around, it was acceptable to sink a tad below DH during the Missed Approach maneuver. DH is NOT an MDA, which by definition is a hard altitude.

 

[Captain]

You can absolutly descend through a DH without the runway. You make your decision AT the decision height. It's right there in the name.

Ride the GS down. Say the DH is 757' MSL. I scan the instruments all the way down. I know where the ceiling should be based on the ATIS. I know going in it's going to be an approach to minimums. I know what the winds are doing so I know to look straight ahead or off to the left or right. Point is it's not a 'hunt'. I know right where to look.

Scan instruments...100 above DH I might take a peek up to look...nothing, back on instruments. AT the DH I look again...nothing, I execute the missed. The plane IS going to go through the DH but that is okay and the regs do support that. Please don't make me go look it up...but I will. An MDA is a hard floor. No busting that. A DH is not...it's just a place to decide.

On all the other stuff...meh, not the way I'd fly it. But I respect your technique. I certainly don't think it's dangerous or anything.

 

[EppyGA]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting but I'm pretty sure your DPE didn't recommend continuing an approach beyond DA regardless of the weather unless you truly were so low on fuel that a diversion to somewhere with better weather wasn't feasible (in which case you already made some significant mistakes). Also, from simulated IC practice I can say that flying an ILS to the runway in 0/0 conditions isn't for the faint of heart and it's not something I'd recommend trying for real if you've never practiced it before (I'll grant that there's an advantage to crashing on an airfield vs into someones house though). A trick I learned is to use the autopilot in pitch hold mode (rather than coupled) during the descent prior and beyond DA coupled with a commanded pitch up to +5 to 6 degrees when your altimeter (or better yet your WAAS GPS) indicates you're about 20 ft in the air. If you fly the approach coupled all the way to the runway there's a good chance the autopilot will generate significant pitch excursions close to the ground and flying fully coupled to DA and then hand flying is likely to induce unwanted pitch changes as well when you disconnect.

No, he wasn't advocating. It was more of a scenario that you're backed into a corner, what are you going to do or contrary to the forecasts the weather goes to hell all around you kind of thing. The point was you're odds are much better to fly the approach and end up with a hard landing then to let it run out of fuel while you fly circles in the sky.

 

[poadeleted20]

That isn't exactly what the definition of "Decision Height" is according to FAR 1.1. I was always taught that AT decision height, you look up and "decide" whether to go around or land. And if the decision was to go around, it was acceptable to sink a tad below DH during the Missed Approach maneuver. DH is NOT an MDA, which by definition is a hard altitude.

Let's start with the definition of DH from 1.1, and then move on to 91.175:

Decision height (DH) is a specified height above the ground in an instrument approach procedure at which the pilot must decide whether to initiate an immediate missed approach if the pilot does not see the required visual reference, or to continue the approach. Decision height is expressed in feet above ground level.

(c) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless--

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;
(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and
(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

As I read that, if you don't already have one of those visual references in sight upon reaching DH, you may not continue the approach below DH and must "initiate an immediate missed approach," i.e., ou are not permitted to continue below DH while you look. Yes, you may sink/settle below DH as you are starting the missed, but you've already made your decision to go missed no later than reaching DH.

 

[poadeleted20]

You can absolutly descend through a DH without the runway.

I didn't say otherwise. I said you must have one of the ten elements of the runway environment as defined in 91.175 ("Magic 10") in sight. The runway is one of those ten, but there are nine others which will do.

You make your decision AT the decision height. It's right there in the name.

Well, if you put it that way, yes -- but that means you must already have one of those ten items in sight at DH. Otherwise, you're still collecting data as you continue below DH, not making the decision at DH based on data already collected.

Ride the GS down. Say the DH is 757' MSL. I scan the instruments all the way down. I know where the ceiling should be based on the ATIS. I know going in it's going to be an approach to minimums. I know what the winds are doing so I know to look straight ahead or off to the left or right. Point is it's not a 'hunt'. I know right where to look.

Scan instruments...100 above DH I might take a peek up to look...nothing, back on instruments.

Great so far.

AT the DH I look again...nothing, I execute the missed.

Then you were, for some period of time, albeit small, operating below DH without any of the Magic 10 in sight while you were looking before making the decision to go missed. That's the point -- you make the decision at DH based on what you've seen to that point; it's not the point at which you start looking or even take one last look.

The plane IS going to go through the DH but that is okay and the regs do support that.

Agreed, but only as part of the transition to the missed, not while still looking for visual references before deciding to go missed.

Please don't make me go look it up...but I will. An MDA is a hard floor. No busting that. A DH is not...it's just a place to decide.

Right -- a place to decide, not to start looking for something you have not yet seen.

On all the other stuff...meh, not the way I'd fly it. But I respect your technique. I certainly don't think it's dangerous or anything.

I wouldn't do it that way in the "big iron" you fly -- and didn't, when I was in bigger, faster aircraft than what you're flying now. We configured for landing before the FAF in the fighters I was in and flew the whole final segment "on speed." But most folks here (and probably all the folks trying to learn this) are flight things more like a 172 than a Lear or a 777, and configuring for landing outside the FAF isn't the best way to do things in such aircraft.

 

[jesse]

Flying a twin I like to leave full flaps off until I'm below 500 AGL and have the runway in sight. But for reasons similar to yours I normally just leave approach flaps on if I'm at or below 200 AGL when the runway comes into view. While the plane can maintain a 3° descent on one engine with full flaps and gear hanging out this does require nearly full power if a prop is windmilling and even with the prop feathered the ability to execute a go-around will be seriously compromised with full flaps close to the ground. I don't know if avoiding full flaps on a LIFR approach in a twin is actually safer but it seems likely.

I learned in the 310 that putting out too much drag on one engine on an ILS can seriously bite you in the ass. I was lucky enough to do all the multi training in an area with terrain and real imc.

 

[gismo]

When flying a light twin (or anything else) in LIFR conditions (by definition, less than 300-1), I want to do everything I can to ensure I don't have to go missed or, worse, go around from below DH. I do that by making the landing as "normal" as possible, and that means using the same flap setting I use on any day VFR landing. I believe in the Law of Exercise, and it doesn't make sense to me to do something differently than usual when conditions are the most stacked against you (low ceiling, low vis, wet runway, etc).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. IME, I've found the transition from half to full flaps precipitate an undesirable temporary deviation from the GP no matter how hard I try to anticipate/avoid it. And when the visibility is on the low end of acceptable I feel much better about the rather minor risks associated with a half flap landing than the risks of chasing the glidepath close to the ground while fighting with visual illusions and mis-perceptions. In any case a partial flap landing isn't all that unfamiliar to me because I practice them on occasion.