When you land at bigger airports, Do you get pressured to land quickly

I vaguely remember a video somebody posted of Dick Rochfort where the tower yells at them to get off the runway, I can't find it now, but I remember he told then once cleared, I own the runway.
 
teejayevans said:
I vaguely remember a video somebody posted of Dick Rochfort where the tower yells at them to get off the runway, I can't find it now, but I remember he told then once cleared, I own the runway.
Click to expand...
I saw that video too! Looks like he deleted it.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Heard this one? ATC tells Boeing to go into a hold. Boeing driver says "it costs 1000 dollars to go around once in a hold with the airplane". ATC says, "Give me 4000 dollars worth"
Click to expand...

I have only ever heard one airline pilot get snippy at ATC because of excessive delays and he had to eat crow when he found out the delay was a company plane that decided to evacuate (apu fire/overheat if I recall) which essentially killed one of the two runways at IAD.

I've been put in position and hold at a downrunway intersection at IAD and left there. When the controllers finally realized they hadn't cleared us to depart, they had to send a guy on final behind (we told them we could clear immediately.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Heard this one? ATC tells Boeing to go into a hold. Boeing driver says "it costs 1000 dollars to go around once in a hold with the airplane". ATC says, "Give me 4000 dollars worth"
Click to expand...
Wish it were true, but there are many similar old wives tales out there. You could almost start a thread about them. Some are not exactly politically correct though!!!
 
As a pilot flying a C150 based at MQY it wasn't uncommon to be asked to go fast due to a JS31 or MU2 in trail. No big deal, 8,000 foot runway, approach with no flaps, bleed speed over the numbers, turn off next taxiway if possible. I was familiar with my airplane and had practice doing no flap landings, which was key. Using flaps got to the point that it was one of those 1 in 10 soft field short field type approaches to retain familiarity. On the other end, MEM approach once asked me to do 160 in a DA40 thinking I was a Diamond Jet. Unable.

Of course the PIC can always say unable. Planning on saying unable from the get go or being unable to fly a profile other than full flaps 4 miles out into a busy airport does however raise the point of the PIC being unable to fly their aircraft at a certain point of the envelope that would be reasonably be required at their intended destination.

There are personal minimums for everything in aviation. This is no different.
 
Just curious... How much time does one really save by doing an unstabalized approach? I totally appreciate the effort you guys are making, but does it really save time? Slowing at say 500 feet and being on speed at 200-300 feet, versus full power to the runway, then floating 3000 feet, trying to configure in the flare or land clean, then rolling another 1000 before the turn off. Remember, if you're on speed your the time from threshold to turn off pays dividends. Plus, remember a stabilized approach is safer, even if only from 200 feet.

I really don't know the answer so I figured I'd throw it out there for comment.
 
Kritchlow said:
Just curious... How much time does one really save by doing an unstabalized approach? I totally appreciate the effort you guys are making, but does it really save time? Slowing at say 500 feet and being on speed at 200-300 feet, versus full power to the runway, then floating 3000 feet, trying to configure in the flare or land clean, then rolling another 1000 before the turn off. Remember, if you're on speed your the time from threshold to turn off pays dividends. Plus, remember a stabilized approach is safer, even if only from 200 feet.

I really don't know the answer so I figured I'd throw it out there for comment.
Click to expand...

Are you asking/replying to me? If so, what are you thinking the OP is flying? OP commented in a thread 6 days ago talking about aspiring to buy an SR22, Warrior, Cherokee or C206. Lets say (again if you're replying to me) OP is flying a 182 which is a step down from a 206. Again, if you're talking to me, does a competent C182 pilot need 4,000 feet to land?

If that wasn't directed at me disregard. If on the offhand chance it was, yes, a 4,000 foot runway, I won't expect firewall to the numbers. However, I doubt a Skylane pilot needs full flaps to land on a 11,000 foot runway and be stable at 1,000 AGL like a B737 at textbook speed.
 
Approach_controller said:
Are you asking/replying to me? If so, what are you thinking the OP is flying? OP commented in a thread 6 days ago talking about aspiring to buy an SR22, Warrior, Cherokee or C206. Lets say (again if you're replying to me) OP is flying a 182 which is a step down from a 206. Again, if you're talking to me, does a competent C182 pilot need 4,000 feet to land?

If that wasn't directed at me disregard. If on the offhand chance it was, yes, a 4,000 foot runway, I won't expect firewall to the numbers. However, I doubt a Skylane pilot needs full flaps to land on a 11,000 foot runway and be stable at 1,000 AGL like a B737 at textbook speed.
Click to expand...
Lol!!!! No, not directed at you. It was a general question for the group. Many seem to say "full throttle till threshold". If that is you, than you are part of that group.

It was a simple question about where the time is spent... On final or floating down the runway.
 
Approach_controller said:
I'm an idiot. Have a nice evening!
Click to expand...

You're definitely NOT an idiot!!! I know what you ATC guys go through. You are TRUE professionals. You are all the ATP's of air traffic controllers. Truly no weekend warriors among you (no offense to weekend warrior pilots. You're great, but every one of these guys are trained to super high standards or they're done).

/end rant ?? :D
 
Kritchlow said:
Just curious... How much time does one really save by doing an unstabalized approach? I totally appreciate the effort you guys are making, but does it really save time? Slowing at say 500 feet and being on speed at 200-300 feet, versus full power to the runway, then floating 3000 feet, trying to configure in the flare or land clean, then rolling another 1000 before the turn off. Remember, if you're on speed your the time from threshold to turn off pays dividends. Plus, remember a stabilized approach is safer, even if only from 200 feet.

I really don't know the answer so I figured I'd throw it out there for comment.
Click to expand...
Just the other day I was asked best speed on the ILS 34 into HPN. I was in a Warrior and had no problems doing it. I was doing 120 indicated and then when I got to about 900 feet (about 500ft AGL) I chopped the power and got configured. I would probably not go best forward speed over the threshold. I like to have a stabilized approach by 500 ft.
 
jordane93 said:
Just the other day I was asked best speed on the ILS 34 into HPN. I was in a Warrior and had no problems doing it. I was doing 120 indicated and then when I got to about 900 feet (about 500ft AGL) I chopped the power and got configured. I would probably not go best forward speed over the threshold. I like to have a stabilized approach by 500 ft.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jordan. And you probably turned off in almost the same amount of time. That's the crux of my question.
 
Kritchlow said:
Thanks, Jordan. And you probably turned off in almost the same amount of time. That's the crux of my question.
Click to expand...
Yea I doubt you save much time going best speed over the threshold then chopping the power. I guess it would also depend on the plane.
 
It depends on how far out the request is made. If you're on a 5 mile straight-in, it's going to make a big difference. If you're asked on 1 mile final, probably not a whole lot.

The other key is knowing your airplane. If you cross the numbers at cruise and float across half the runway, nothing is gained. But if you know exactly where to chop the throttle, drop the gear, pop the speed brakes, extend the flaps, and slip, then helicopter it in, that's going to pay dividends.
 
Let's assume you give best speed until 6 miles out, if you continue past that point at 120 knots, the 6 miles takes 3 minutes, if you slow down to 90 knots, it takes 4 minutes, so going to the threshold will save you only 1 minute but your landing will take longer because of the increased float, so in reality you are saving maybe 45 secs.
 
Never felt pressured by a speed request. Probably because I have never had any problem slowing a Cessna down. Haha. That's easy. It's a draggy beast.
 
denverpilot said:
Never felt pressured by a speed request. Probably because I have never had any problem slowing a Cessna down. Haha. That's easy. It's a draggy beast.
Click to expand...

How do you speed-up a Cessna so that there is even a need to slow down? That's what I wanna know.
 
teejayevans said:
Let's assume you give best speed until 6 miles out, if you continue past that point at 120 knots, the 6 miles takes 3 minutes, if you slow down to 90 knots, it takes 4 minutes, so going to the threshold will save you only 1 minute but your landing will take longer because of the increased float, so in reality you are saving maybe 45 secs.
Click to expand...

Well, the assumption would be that you're in control enough to not float down the runway. Instead, you do what you need to on short final to kill all that speed in a hurry. Obviously, this is something that requires knowing your airplane well so that you can pick just the right moments to bring the various tools into play.

And 45 seconds...ask a controller if 45 seconds is a long time. When you're plunking planes down every two or three minutes, 45 seconds extra can be an eternity.

The other item that matters is headwind. A strong headwind will improve any gains from going faster.
 
Last edited:
Yep. 45 seconds is an eternity in my line of work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Clark1961 said:
How do you speed-up a Cessna so that there is even a need to slow down? That's what I wanna know.
Click to expand...

Can't really, unless you are a couple of thousand feet above where you need to be in the first place. That happens flying into Salt Lake. Entering westbound through either Emigration or Parleys you can give them maybe 10-15 extra kts if needed. :D
 
Clark1961 said:
How do you speed-up a Cessna so that there is even a need to slow down? That's what I wanna know.
Click to expand...



woodchucker said:
Can't really, unless you are a couple of thousand feet above where you need to be in the first place. That happens flying into Salt Lake. Entering westbound through either Emigration or Parleys you can give them maybe 10-15 extra kts if needed. :D
Click to expand...


ROFL. So true. Nothing we piston pounders is particularly fast. If we are going to mix it up with the turbines, we'd better be prepared to go faster. Our cruise speeds are their approach speeds. And all we have to do is yank the power and wait about 20 seconds to reduce speed to land. No big deal.
 
teejayevans said:
Let's assume you give best speed until 6 miles out, if you continue past that point at 120 knots, the 6 miles takes 3 minutes, if you slow down to 90 knots, it takes 4 minutes, so going to the threshold will save you only 1 minute but your landing will take longer because of the increased float, so in reality you are saving maybe 45 secs.
Click to expand...

I'm aiming for 2.5 miles for the jet in trail of you. If I assume you're going to go fast I can get it. If you slow because what's 45 seconds at 180 miles an hour, that's a jet going from 2.5 in trail to you or the guy behind the one following you getting impaled. The difference between a safe operation and a go around.

Lets not forget that everyone I'm sequencing has to be slowed, turned out, and the sequence hashed out again in my mind. Best to tell me sooner than later that you'll be dumping flaps and flying VSO. Doing that is fine, just don't surprise me with it and leave me holding the bag.
 
I'm curious how many gear-ups were the result of a speed request? I can imagine a controller asking a complex single to keep their speed up, and the pilot electing to keep the gear up crossing the FAF as the plane has a gear extension speed limit. The gear horn doesn't sound until power is brought back on short final--possibly misinterpreted by the pilot as a stall horn.

Nothing really throws off the flow of traffic to a runway like a shut-down to remove a geared-up airplane.
 
Very few, judging by the lack of video of singles sitting gear up at large airports.
 
denverpilot said:
ROFL. And all we have to do is yank the power and wait about 20 seconds to reduce speed to land. No big deal.
Click to expand...

We?
Not for Mooneys it won't, they have a 18:1 glide ratio, you can't slow down and get down at the same time, it's one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've had this quite a bit at KSRQ (home airport). There's a lot of jet traffic on the weekends when I fly and I'm usually asked to keep my speed up, which means flying the approach at 115 knots or more. I can push it to 120 (bottom of the yellow arc), but I don't like to do that.

The good news is that the plane I fly (PA-28-180C) slows down VERY well. Pull the power and slight pitch up and the airspeed bleeds off like crazy. I can get down and slow down without a problem.
 
teejayevans said:
We?
Not for Mooneys it won't, they have a 18:1 glide ratio, you can't slow down and get down at the same time, it's one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A little high, M20Js are around 12:1, still very good.
 
Not usually but sometimes.

This is pretty common as I've read things like this on here before.... I got dumped into the ILS sequence yesterday. I was too high and they dropped me 1000 feet just as I was intercepting GS (before the FAF). I don't know why they did that so close in. Why not just have me intercept from 9000 instead of 8000? There is nothing prohibiting that and the GS is just as good at 9000 as it is at 8000. Anyway, so much for stabilized.

I had a Gulfstream in front of me (wake turb spacing needed) and a somethingjet (Learjet or Citation, I didn't care enough to look closely as it landed) behind me.

So the ceiling was high and breaking up and I broke out almost immediately - way high still but with runway already in sight. So screw the GS at that point. They then asked for best fwd speed. Well that's a pointless thing to say to a Cessna with gear and flaps down. Then about 1.8 seconds later they just told me to sidestep to the parallel and cleared me to land. Deal. Problem solved.

They tried to put a slow peg in a fast hole and it didn't work. If weather had been low I would have gone missed or told them to KMA ("unable" or "request vectors back to final" or something).

**** happens. In this case it worked out fine.
 
Last edited:
teejayevans said:
We?
Not for Mooneys it won't, they have a 18:1 glide ratio, you can't slow down and get down at the same time, it's one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When you lower the gear , full flaps and cut the throttle, Mooneys slow down and come down well. The runways we are discussing are very long so it's really not a problem if you've flown a mooneyfor say, a couple hundred hours or so. We are talking runways over ten thousand feet long, otherwise there wouldn't be a heavy behind you in most cases.
 
MAKG1 said:
huh?



Glide ratios are dimensionless. They are the same in metric and Imperial units.
Click to expand...

But its calculated from non dimensionless numbers,
I calc ratio from graph: altitude on Y axis and distance on X axis.
 
teejayevans said:
But its calculated from non dimensionless numbers,
I calc ratio from graph: altitude on Y axis and distance on X axis.
Click to expand...

Glide can be expressed either way, but when someone uses the word "ratio" they usually mean dimensionless numbers, as in 12:1. 12 units forward for 1 unit vertically.

Glide can also be expressed in non-matching units such as 3 miles per 1000 feet.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
When you lower the gear , full flaps and cut the throttle, Mooneys slow down and come down well. The runways we are discussing are very long so it's really not a problem if you've flown a mooneyfor say, a couple hundred hours or so. We are talking runways over ten thousand feet long, otherwise there wouldn't be a heavy behind you in most cases.
Click to expand...

Once you get down to gear/flap speeds. My 68F was 120 mph gear and 100 mph flaps.
 
Kritchlow said:
Just curious... How much time does one really save by doing an unstabalized approach? I totally appreciate the effort you guys are making, but does it really save time? Slowing at say 500 feet and being on speed at 200-300 feet, versus full power to the runway, then floating 3000 feet, trying to configure in the flare or land clean, then rolling another 1000 before the turn off. Remember, if you're on speed your the time from threshold to turn off pays dividends. Plus, remember a stabilized approach is safer, even if only from 200 feet.



I really don't know the answer so I figured I'd throw it out there for comment.
Click to expand...

Don't know the time answer, as it is more of a spacing- separation issue.

At a busy airport like CLT, when approach is trying to fit GA into a long line of 121 jets, it does make a difference if you are overtaking me by 30-50 kts.

My experience today going into 23 at CLT was this: "Baron 16C, maintain 170 kts until 5 mile final, cleared Visual Approach runway 23"

That was probably the tightest I've seen. I basically had to climb at FAF to get below my gear/flap speed, but the transition was seamless. I was back to being stabilized with gear and flaps on the ILS within a mile.

Had we been in IMC, I might not have been as comfortable doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top