Standard of instruction
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Definitely not. It's the sort of nanny-state rule used by airlines whose pilots have insufficient manual flying practice to cope with anything other than button pushing.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: SW England - and happy!
Beags,
you say that but your post on the previous page almost says the same,
Quote: " I fly an instrument approach clean at the normal cruise speed, but decelerate and configure from DH/MDH (500/600 ft these days as I don't need an IR - an IMC rating is entirely adequate) to achieve the correct POH approach speed from about 3-400 ft"
Five hundred feet is a good place for a new PPL to get fully configured on a straight in approach - it roughly corresponds with having turned finals on most airfield circuit approaches.
A more experienced pilot can reduce this as required - which was the yardstick I was offering.
And the dig at airline pilots??
you say that but your post on the previous page almost says the same,
Quote: " I fly an instrument approach clean at the normal cruise speed, but decelerate and configure from DH/MDH (500/600 ft these days as I don't need an IR - an IMC rating is entirely adequate) to achieve the correct POH approach speed from about 3-400 ft"
Five hundred feet is a good place for a new PPL to get fully configured on a straight in approach - it roughly corresponds with having turned finals on most airfield circuit approaches.
A more experienced pilot can reduce this as required - which was the yardstick I was offering.
And the dig at airline pilots??
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Err, sorry - for some reason I thought that the post referred to normal visual approaches!
Dig at airline pilots? Nope - not a dig at the pilots themselves but a dig at nanny-state SOPs which have displaced decision making and which insist that fully automatic approaches should be flown whenever possible.
Dig at airline pilots? Nope - not a dig at the pilots themselves but a dig at nanny-state SOPs which have displaced decision making and which insist that fully automatic approaches should be flown whenever possible.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
Cannot reist telling this tale in response to being stable etc.
Remember when I had just converted to the B707 in 1971 (my first jet conversion) and one of my first line sectors was into PIK RW 31 - got held a bit high by ATC but got the gear down and full flap only to break cloud with quite a high aspect! Very good skipper who gave me lots of reassurance (before all the days of SOPs saying you have to be stable by 500 ft etc.) and just told me to keep VREF + 20 minimum and we ended up touching down at the 1,000 point from a glide approach!!
Not the best way of doing it but I learned a lot - they wouldn't let you do that sort of thing now, or would they?!
But the best bit was when the No 1 (steward) came up to the flightdeck after landing to tell us that he didnt look back to check the cabin for landing but UP!
Remember when I had just converted to the B707 in 1971 (my first jet conversion) and one of my first line sectors was into PIK RW 31 - got held a bit high by ATC but got the gear down and full flap only to break cloud with quite a high aspect! Very good skipper who gave me lots of reassurance (before all the days of SOPs saying you have to be stable by 500 ft etc.) and just told me to keep VREF + 20 minimum and we ended up touching down at the 1,000 point from a glide approach!!
Not the best way of doing it but I learned a lot - they wouldn't let you do that sort of thing now, or would they?!
But the best bit was when the No 1 (steward) came up to the flightdeck after landing to tell us that he didnt look back to check the cabin for landing but UP!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
BEagale
The nanny state may be alive and well in northern euorpe but they tend to turn a blind eye when they go on holiday!.
If these guys above think that on some of the Greek islands they will get a stable approach by 1000 ft then it is time to have a rethink !!!.
The company that I fly for requires a stable approach at 500ft viaual and 1000 ft for an inst app and this is with a 78,000 kg jet.
Most student PPL's should have the aircraft stable by 500ft but stable can mean stable in the turn and configered at Vref if you are flying oval CCT's.
BOB...... I like your style !!!!!!!.
If these guys above think that on some of the Greek islands they will get a stable approach by 1000 ft then it is time to have a rethink !!!.
The company that I fly for requires a stable approach at 500ft viaual and 1000 ft for an inst app and this is with a 78,000 kg jet.
Most student PPL's should have the aircraft stable by 500ft but stable can mean stable in the turn and configered at Vref if you are flying oval CCT's.
BOB...... I like your style !!!!!!!.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
How you can obtain a 'stable from 1000 ft' approach on a 180-to-4 low-drag profile, I can't quite imagine. Unless your Vref is not far off 180, of course.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 527
Likes: 72
From: Mycenae
Never been asked to do 180 til 4 anywhere in Mr Boeings finest product - it would definately result in a polished shoes, hat on chat with the fleet manager!! 160 is the norm, technique is to get the flaps out and drop the gear at 4.5 miles which just about gets the speed below the flap limiting speed for land flap. Auto approaches have their uses but the vast majority in my firm are manual, especially in Greece!!
I believe that some of the turbo-props can fly a faster approach and use their aerodynamic drag to be configured nicely in time to land.
I teach 100kts to MDA for IMCs in a PA28 as well, seems to make things easier all round
I believe that some of the turbo-props can fly a faster approach and use their aerodynamic drag to be configured nicely in time to land.
I teach 100kts to MDA for IMCs in a PA28 as well, seems to make things easier all round
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: london
its easy to get involved with what you can do and base your teaching upon that. personally the stabilisation point has taken the fun out of the visual approach especially as we are being monitored by optic.
its great to cream a large a/c around the corner at 300 ft and land but its not really what the punters are paying for.
what students need, i believe is achievable targets and goals.
my first student target was early go around from base leg if it looked doubtful, not wait till final when it was only usualy worse.
the next target was never below 400 feet for the turn onto final. that target would be adjusted on base.
the next target was a final 200 feet stablisation in regard to airspeed, centreline and height .
i cant remember what i taught for a blocked runway go around target but guess it was 100ft
icarus i suppose you are correct, its good to teach someone a faster approach for the reasons you state, but where do you draw the line in what you teach. i would prefer to spend time on teaching oval circuits!
ps you may think from the above we did a lot of go arounds. we did!
i would rather use a good go around a s the basis for first solo than a good landing!
its great to cream a large a/c around the corner at 300 ft and land but its not really what the punters are paying for.
what students need, i believe is achievable targets and goals.
my first student target was early go around from base leg if it looked doubtful, not wait till final when it was only usualy worse.
the next target was never below 400 feet for the turn onto final. that target would be adjusted on base.
the next target was a final 200 feet stablisation in regard to airspeed, centreline and height .
i cant remember what i taught for a blocked runway go around target but guess it was 100ft
icarus i suppose you are correct, its good to teach someone a faster approach for the reasons you state, but where do you draw the line in what you teach. i would prefer to spend time on teaching oval circuits!
ps you may think from the above we did a lot of go arounds. we did!
i would rather use a good go around a s the basis for first solo than a good landing!
