EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Is that part of the CSIP training too? You guys get pretty defensive, and it's half the reason I throw a bit of hyperbole out there.
When to configure airplane for landing during precision approach?
- Thread starter MacFlier
- Start date
Is that part of the CSIP training too? You guys get pretty defensive, and it's half the reason I throw a bit of hyperbole out there.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
You say that partially in jest, I assume, but it's funny, the last issue of COPA magazine was basically a treatise on how to cope with online Cirrus hate lol
my defense of the product is sometimes hyperbolic as well, back when I was on social media I peppered just about all my posts with #CirrusLife and often played to the "not-a-real-pilot" trope.. "you shot the approach to minimums?" "yeah, just leave the AP on and let it follow the magenta line, I got a chute anyway, it's fine" type of thing
Some of the COPA people do get *very* sensitive. There was a thread some time ago about a guy who got all bent of shape because when he declared he was going around someone on the radio chimed in "just pull the chute!"
Whatever, it's all in good fun (usually)
The only stuff that get's to me is when it's clearly misinformed or hate filled... IE, the notion that if the plane stalls it spins and can't be recovered and crashes, hence why it needs a chute.. and stuff like that. Or when the cliches start getting old, or when someone can tell me with a straight face that having a parachute has zero positive impact on safety. But I digress!
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
Is that part of the CSIP training too? You guys get pretty defensive, and it's half the reason I throw a bit of hyperbole out there.
You'd have know the secret handshake for me to say an more. Lol.
Yes, I remember a post about some guy bent out of shape because an airline guy (he thinks, he had the recording but I thought it was someone else.), anyway, he was going to report this guy to his airline he was so ****ed. The other guy had said "Pull the chute!". Hasn't happened to me yet, but I would come back with something like "Hell no, I'm not the one who stuck it up your butt!!!".
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I wonder if that is because most of who Cirrus markets to - people that may have trouble taking criticism - whether in jest or legit. I know it's not every single CirrusMonkey
, but there do seem to be a lot of sandy vajayjays in the community.The Cirrus is a nice ride, but with a primary destination of mine being a 2600' grass strip it's a non starter for me.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Actually Cirrus and COPA both place a huge emphasis on both being able to use the plane to the maximum of the capabilities; then flying with a margin and in a manor which minimizes risk. In most cases, I agree with the mentality, in this particular case I disagree. Once "runway is made" at less than 200ft AGL, I usually go from half flaps (take off/approach) to full flaps. I do this on visual and instrument approaches, at which point my eyes are outside the window and it easy to compensate for the flap change in position/pitch.
Tim
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
I wonder if that is because most of who Cirrus markets to - people that may have trouble taking criticism - whether in jest or legit. I know it's not every single CirrusMonkey
The Cirrus is a nice ride, but with a primary destination of mine being a 2600' grass strip it's a non starter for me.
Most Cirrus pilots I know are rather proud of their skills, training, and the performance of the plane. There really is not much that can match Cirrus in all aspects of mission, comfort, capability and training community.
I think I fair amount of the animus is the same stuff that affected Beech a long time ago with the V-Tail doctor killer.
Tim
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
ABSOLUTELY FREE! https://www.cirrusaircraft.com/embark/
Cirrus seems to be supplying the POH in video form to reach the electronic oriented customer to understand the requirements of safe flight.
As an engineer type pilot, I have read the POH for every plane that I have flown without an instructor. I read them cover to cover, and expect the plane to achieve exactly what is described. Planes have not let me down, except when a component failed.
I have a friend who had a Cirrus, and loved it. When the time came to decide whether he was going to stay with the Cirrus, or with a C 172, the C 172 won. There were practical reasons that the Cessna was a better fit with the majority of his flying, the majority of his trips were too short to make any difference which plane he flew. Unfortunately, he exited the partnership before I had an opportunity to fly with him.
Back to the original topic of the thread, the proper configuration for an approach is not anywhere near a one size fits all issue, but rather one where the unique characteristics of the individual aircraft, combined with the nature of the airport of destination and its traffic, plus the preferences of the airman himself, determines the best configuration.
Those of us who are not professional pilots, flying constantly, will not be comfortable with the quick configuration changes at breakout, or with less than 2,000 feet remaining runway, and no flaps down. At least 2/3ds of my approaches were not logged because one or more requirements for logging were not met, but my skills were maintained by flying every approach that fit my arrival. I have had 6 Instrument instructors, and their guidance has varied widely, partly because most of them normally flew Piper products, which had entirely different flap response characteristics. I got my IR in Piper 28's.
My favorite Cessna instructor taught me where the edges of the envelope of our plane were, then trained me to pick exactly how far from those edges were the best for the various conditions. Over a period of 3 years, flying with him at night, we made 6 precision approaches to 20 feet AGL before making the go around. The inbound speed in MPH, in an old 150, was 60. The faster traffic was operated out of the parallel runway, we were the only ones on final, and the tower knew we were going low. When the instructor took over for the missed, I popped the blinder off, and could see the runway edge lights on both sides. The point he was driving home, was, if trapped on top, do a precision approach while I had plenty of gas to do several until I was right in the middle, and go to the surface. I was to be sure that the tower understood just what I was doing, and had the emergency vehicles out and ready.
As an engineer type pilot, I have read the POH for every plane that I have flown without an instructor. I read them cover to cover, and expect the plane to achieve exactly what is described. Planes have not let me down, except when a component failed.
I have a friend who had a Cirrus, and loved it. When the time came to decide whether he was going to stay with the Cirrus, or with a C 172, the C 172 won. There were practical reasons that the Cessna was a better fit with the majority of his flying, the majority of his trips were too short to make any difference which plane he flew. Unfortunately, he exited the partnership before I had an opportunity to fly with him.
Back to the original topic of the thread, the proper configuration for an approach is not anywhere near a one size fits all issue, but rather one where the unique characteristics of the individual aircraft, combined with the nature of the airport of destination and its traffic, plus the preferences of the airman himself, determines the best configuration.
Those of us who are not professional pilots, flying constantly, will not be comfortable with the quick configuration changes at breakout, or with less than 2,000 feet remaining runway, and no flaps down. At least 2/3ds of my approaches were not logged because one or more requirements for logging were not met, but my skills were maintained by flying every approach that fit my arrival. I have had 6 Instrument instructors, and their guidance has varied widely, partly because most of them normally flew Piper products, which had entirely different flap response characteristics. I got my IR in Piper 28's.
My favorite Cessna instructor taught me where the edges of the envelope of our plane were, then trained me to pick exactly how far from those edges were the best for the various conditions. Over a period of 3 years, flying with him at night, we made 6 precision approaches to 20 feet AGL before making the go around. The inbound speed in MPH, in an old 150, was 60. The faster traffic was operated out of the parallel runway, we were the only ones on final, and the tower knew we were going low. When the instructor took over for the missed, I popped the blinder off, and could see the runway edge lights on both sides. The point he was driving home, was, if trapped on top, do a precision approach while I had plenty of gas to do several until I was right in the middle, and go to the surface. I was to be sure that the tower understood just what I was doing, and had the emergency vehicles out and ready.
For most of us, you're not going to do an ILS (or an LPV) approach to a runway that isn't at least twice as long as we need to land. Hence, it's not usually necessary to have the plane in the short field configuration either before or after break out. I do like to have the gear down. I fly it with gear down and flaps 10 just because it works well for my plane. As with many planes, the extending the gear gives a nice transition between level flight and the precision descent rate.
However, the key (no matter what you do), is to develop the commands that give you the performance you need. The model that works well is what PIC/Peter Dogan espouse. You develop a list of power settings/configuratinos that give you expected speed/descent rates in a handful of regimes of instrument flight and use these as your base and adjust from there.
Frankly, I've got no problem throwing the rest of the flaps out at 200' AGL. That's about where I'd close the throttle on landing anyhow. But if you want to drive your plane on to the runway in the same configuration that you did to get to 200' you'll probably still not run off the end.
However, the key (no matter what you do), is to develop the commands that give you the performance you need. The model that works well is what PIC/Peter Dogan espouse. You develop a list of power settings/configuratinos that give you expected speed/descent rates in a handful of regimes of instrument flight and use these as your base and adjust from there.
Frankly, I've got no problem throwing the rest of the flaps out at 200' AGL. That's about where I'd close the throttle on landing anyhow. But if you want to drive your plane on to the runway in the same configuration that you did to get to 200' you'll probably still not run off the end.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
I intentionally did my instrument ticket in an Arrow, because I find that the additional configuration changes sets you up for success. You can slow the plane quite easily, cause it cruises not much above gear speed and gear speed will get you down to flap speed. It also prepares you for moving into higher performance complex planes.
Anyway, my CFII taught me the 3-2-1 rule, and I follow that even in a fixed gear plane, just with a slight change.
3 Miles to the FAF, drop the gear (or slow to flap speed)
2 Miles to the FAF put in the first flap setting.
No configuration changes until 1 mile out from the runway, unless you get the runway in sight.
This will get you to the magic 90 with ease in almost all light singles, as long as you know your power settings. It also gives you a little time to configure at minimums when you see the runway.
Now, if I'm visual with the runway and there is someone behind me, especially someone faster and I've got over 4000 feet? I'll fly it down at 140 knots till a 3 mile final like I did at KSNA about a month ago. If I'm in the clouds, I don't care who is behind me - they can break off the approach or I can. I'm doing it slow and safe.
You fly the approach too fast, and I proved that
Tantalum and I are based at probably the ILS airport with the shortest landing distance available on earth, at 3400'. You definitely need to be on your game.
Anyway, my CFII taught me the 3-2-1 rule, and I follow that even in a fixed gear plane, just with a slight change.
3 Miles to the FAF, drop the gear (or slow to flap speed)
2 Miles to the FAF put in the first flap setting.
No configuration changes until 1 mile out from the runway, unless you get the runway in sight.
This will get you to the magic 90 with ease in almost all light singles, as long as you know your power settings. It also gives you a little time to configure at minimums when you see the runway.
Now, if I'm visual with the runway and there is someone behind me, especially someone faster and I've got over 4000 feet? I'll fly it down at 140 knots till a 3 mile final like I did at KSNA about a month ago. If I'm in the clouds, I don't care who is behind me - they can break off the approach or I can. I'm doing it slow and safe.
You fly the approach too fast, and I proved that
Tantalum and I are based at probably the ILS airport with the shortest landing distance available on earth, at 3400'. You definitely need to be on your game.
My home field has 2 GPS approaches, and the usable runway length is 2607 feet. There are 57 foot trees 619 feet from the end of the favored runway, 7 to 1 slope. You either use all the flaps or slip with enthusiasm if the density altitude is high with zero wind. My instructor alternated between the two techniques after I reached about 20 hours, pointing out that slips could be entered and recovered from without taking your hand off the throttle, and there was no configuration change for the go around. Cold days with some wind down the runway are much more relaxed.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I intentionally did my instrument ticket in an Arrow, because I find that the additional configuration changes sets you up for success. You can slow the plane quite easily, cause it cruises not much above gear speed and gear speed will get you down to flap speed. It also prepares you for moving into higher performance complex planes.
Anyway, my CFII taught me the 3-2-1 rule, and I follow that even in a fixed gear plane, just with a slight change.
3 Miles to the FAF, drop the gear (or slow to flap speed)
2 Miles to the FAF put in the first flap setting.
No configuration changes until 1 mile out from the runway, unless you get the runway in sight.
This will get you to the magic 90 with ease in almost all light singles, as long as you know your power settings. It also gives you a little time to configure at minimums when you see the runway.
Now, if I'm visual with the runway and there is someone behind me, especially someone faster and I've got over 4000 feet? I'll fly it down at 140 knots till a 3 mile final like I did at KSNA about a month ago. If I'm in the clouds, I don't care who is behind me - they can break off the approach or I can. I'm doing it slow and safe.
You fly the approach too fast, and I proved that
Tantalum and I are based at probably the ILS airport with the shortest landing distance available on earth, at 3400'. You definitely need to be on your game.
That's MYF. 3200 is the minimum for visibilty minimums down to 3/4 miles but there are some exceptions. There's probably a few in the world somewhere but I doubt very many. Yeah, if you get on the needle and then just hold that angle of descent until the wheels squeak, your going to get to explore the end of the runway.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's a good way to look at it. Slips are under taught in training. I've run across pilots who think of them as some special, unusual thing. I don't think I've ever had a flight since very early in primary training that I didn't slip the plane.
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
but....you've never flown a Bo. I can tell.
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Rethink LPV only for large airports. My home base is/was on the schedule for LPV in 2020 and that runway is only 2700 ft with some interesting trees in the way.
The FAA has been rolling a lot of LPV approaches every year. I think the FAA now has over 2000 LPV approaches compared to less than a few hundred ILS.
Tim
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Lmao. I have, with a V-Tail and a A36. I was not impressed. It flies like a pig and is supper sloppy in the controls and very forgiving of sloppy piloting.but....you've never flown a Bo. I can tell.
Note: I found the Baron to be the same.
Tim (flame suit on)
Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
BS.... lol
Still 4 times the rollout I need.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
This appears to be a fairly desirable trait among many pilots.. sort of the "feels like a 1970s pickup truck" vibe. I prefer tight and / or snappy controls.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's from the threshold. The glideslope point of intercept on that runway is about 782 feet from the threshold. That leaves about 2615. Yeah, plenty of runway for a lot of planes. But ya can't come across the fence fast and/or high without expecting a little adventure. I fly that Approach clean at around 90 in a C172. At minimums I pull the throttle, hit the flap switch and start pulling back. Puts me down by the first TDZ bars
tspear
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,587
- Display Name
Display name:
Timothy
Actually yes, I fly by the numbers. I am a stickler for it.
Beech has a very forgiving airfoil which makes pilots look good. Also, with the rather good feedback via the yoke, which makes it easy to fly.
Easy comparison to Cirrus, terrible feedback in the side yoke (basically non-existent), very responsive with minimal control movement (both in the yoke and the control surfaces).
Cirrus on the other hand, requires that you fly a lot more by the numbers. If you do not, not only will you look bad but you can more easily induce PIO.
Neither plane holds a candle to the Aerostar for feedback, responsiveness, general feel (let alone speed and power) or the requirement to fly precisely.
Tim
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
the Cirrus feels nothing like a 1970s pickup truck. The plane actually goes where you point it.. if I have to force a car analogy then I liken its handling to a 5 series BMW.. that sure beats the late-70s-cadillac-with-blown-shocks feelThen why do you fly that Cirrus that does everything for you?
PS, weren't bragging that the g3x you're putting in the tiger is going to be more capable and have better automation than the G1000 Perspective? FWIW Mooney puts a very similar Garmin G1000 (though less integrated and cheaply done) in their planes
(ducks and covers lol)
That's presuming you're going to fly the glide slope into the runway. At a 200' DH, you're going to break out about a 1/4 from the runway. I can transition to setting it down on the piano keys from that point just by closing the throttle.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
LOL - At least the G3x is certified for Mooneys - but not your little parachute plane
I like the 5 Series reference for the Cirrus. It isn't far off. Bonanzas handle similarly. 210s are more like a 1970s pickup.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
we're too cool for that experimental stuff
-incidentally, I had a chance to play with the G3000 in the Vision Jet at Oshkosh and it's a pretty slick setup
I always enjoy the plane=car analogies!
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
The G3000 is nice. Too bad the Vision is not a good product.
I’m still trying to hitch a ride in my flight school’s Vision jet. Every time is has to go in for an empty leg for mx, I’m always working!
olasek
Pattern Altitude
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Being slow, to start. No RVSM either. Oh, and fuel burn. You're better off in a TBM, Cheyenne or MU2.
The G2 is RVSM certified. But I agree, not fast enough and payload is kind of sub par. It’s a neat little jet though. My flight school flew it into ATL a few weeks and the controllers were not happy vectoring it around for the approach. The ref speed that day was 90kts
I intentionally did my instrument ticket in an Arrow, because I find that the additional configuration changes sets you up for success. You can slow the plane quite easily, cause it cruises not much above gear speed and gear speed will get you down to flap speed. It also prepares you for moving into higher performance complex planes.
Anyway, my CFII taught me the 3-2-1 rule, and I follow that even in a fixed gear plane, just with a slight change.
3 Miles to the FAF, drop the gear (or slow to flap speed)
2 Miles to the FAF put in the first flap setting.
No configuration changes until 1 mile out from the runway, unless you get the runway in sight.
This will get you to the magic 90 with ease in almost all light singles, as long as you know your power settings. It also gives you a little time to configure at minimums when you see the runway.
Now, if I'm visual with the runway and there is someone behind me, especially someone faster and I've got over 4000 feet? I'll fly it down at 140 knots till a 3 mile final like I did at KSNA about a month ago. If I'm in the clouds, I don't care who is behind me - they can break off the approach or I can. I'm doing it slow and safe.
You fly the approach too fast, and I proved that
Tantalum and I are based at probably the ILS airport with the shortest landing distance available on earth, at 3400'. You definitely need to be on your game.
In my discussion with my CFII I asked about deploying just flaps 10? He argued that flaps 10 in a C172 would require us to slow down to 80 kias, maybe too slow to the IFR flow and that it would be easy to overspeed with flaps 10 when correcting to intercept glideslope.
In the mentioned flight, we slowed down to flap speed, deployed flaps 20, with the thought of "this is a good enough config to land the plane slow enough". But that caused an unwanted balloon effect (yes, I should have anticipated it).
On the last one, we just slowed the plane to 90 kias, flaps 0 and kept it that way until minimums. I was able to slow down and deploy full flaps before touching down right before the 1000ft marker, so I think I'm getting better at slowing the plane down quickly. I guess practice will make it easier and feel less rushed.
For a precision approach I'm almost always configuring just before the FAF.
I like to have the plane configured for the approach and trimmed at approach speed about 1/3 NM from the final approach. From there the only thing I should really have to touch all the way down to MAP is the throttle.
I'd also argue its approach and condition dependent.
I probably wouldn't go as slow or drop as much flaps in any aircraft if I'm flying into a strong head wind or am expecting some amount of shear.
I'm usually not really all that concerned about keeping my speed up. When I first started I was all about keeping my speed up in the approaches until my instructor demonstrated how much easier it is when you slow down the approach, how you are less likely you are to go missed at 70 kts than you are at 120 kts and he had me do the math... Over a distance of 3NM or less the difference in time to cover the distance at varying speeds is fairly negligible (unless you're in a Super STOL Cub and can fly your approach at 20 MPH). I've yet to encounter a precision approach with a FAF significantly greater than 3NM from the runway (non-precisions are a different story but I make other adjustments for non-precisions with long final approach segments).
In actual conditions, there shouldn't be anyone behind me on the approach anyway and there's likely no one in the pattern who's pattern I'm about to mess up (though uncontrolled airports with precision approaches do exist so its not impossible). In simulated conditions, I'll fly my approaches a little slower or faster to accommodate if needed but I try not to make a big deal of it (or vary it too much since I'm looking to practice and build proficiency with what I'd actually do in IMC)
I like to have the plane configured for the approach and trimmed at approach speed about 1/3 NM from the final approach. From there the only thing I should really have to touch all the way down to MAP is the throttle.
I'd also argue its approach and condition dependent.
I probably wouldn't go as slow or drop as much flaps in any aircraft if I'm flying into a strong head wind or am expecting some amount of shear.
I'm usually not really all that concerned about keeping my speed up. When I first started I was all about keeping my speed up in the approaches until my instructor demonstrated how much easier it is when you slow down the approach, how you are less likely you are to go missed at 70 kts than you are at 120 kts and he had me do the math... Over a distance of 3NM or less the difference in time to cover the distance at varying speeds is fairly negligible (unless you're in a Super STOL Cub and can fly your approach at 20 MPH). I've yet to encounter a precision approach with a FAF significantly greater than 3NM from the runway (non-precisions are a different story but I make other adjustments for non-precisions with long final approach segments).
In actual conditions, there shouldn't be anyone behind me on the approach anyway and there's likely no one in the pattern who's pattern I'm about to mess up (though uncontrolled airports with precision approaches do exist so its not impossible). In simulated conditions, I'll fly my approaches a little slower or faster to accommodate if needed but I try not to make a big deal of it (or vary it too much since I'm looking to practice and build proficiency with what I'd actually do in IMC)
As a CFII and former cargo pilot I'd answer that you need to be comfortable doing both slow and fast approaches. Slow and ready for landing at FAF is always the most stable, perfect for check rides, but it is slow in a 172 or warrior. It isn't bad to shoot an approach faster. As long as you can master the art of slowing your airplane for landing from the minimums you are descending too, could be 200 feet AGL or more. It also depends on the airplane you are flying. A 172 will slow remarkably fast in an easy, predictable and stable manner: Pull off the power, carb heat on, keep pitch level, at white arc add max flaps , then pitch for landing speed on final, all the while control your pitch attitude, no crazy fluctuations. Not hard to do but don't try it at 200 AGL on your own the first time after popping out of IMC, gotta get the feel of it. I'll take my students around the pattern, C172, 100mph until 200 AGL and then practice slowing down and landing. It takes the right touch.
A bigger heavier plane may be harder to slow. Some are next to impossible to slow but usually with gear down, properly cooled engines, the first notch of flaps, will get you where you need to be to land. A jet, well you better be set up before the FAF.
And do not descend into ground effect and try to bleed off speed there. Stay up 50 to 100 feet, level off, slow down and then descend.
When in doubt, missed approach, with an immediate positive climb, get to a pitch / power attitude that will get you up and away from danger.
Landings after IMC are always tough. Never pass up the opportunity to practice that transition. Ask your CFII to let you touch and go, NOT JUST LOW APPROACHES. For me I mentally focus harder on the landing, get my vision outside and off the gauges and force myself to make the plane do what is required for a good full stall landing.
My $.02
A bigger heavier plane may be harder to slow. Some are next to impossible to slow but usually with gear down, properly cooled engines, the first notch of flaps, will get you where you need to be to land. A jet, well you better be set up before the FAF.
And do not descend into ground effect and try to bleed off speed there. Stay up 50 to 100 feet, level off, slow down and then descend.
When in doubt, missed approach, with an immediate positive climb, get to a pitch / power attitude that will get you up and away from danger.
Landings after IMC are always tough. Never pass up the opportunity to practice that transition. Ask your CFII to let you touch and go, NOT JUST LOW APPROACHES. For me I mentally focus harder on the landing, get my vision outside and off the gauges and force myself to make the plane do what is required for a good full stall landing.
My $.02