Commercial in a T210

[ALIMBO]

Did you mean stable?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

What is considered "Stabile" in part 91 ops. ? Just curious if there is a difference between "Parts 135, 121, 91 etc.."

An example of a typical "stabilized approach" in GA:

IFR - Stabilized by 1000' AGL (ILS)
IFR - Stabilized by MDA (NP)
VFR - Stabilized by 500' AGL

Stabilized criteria:

Gear down
Flaps set
Heading established (for wind correction)
Steady needles
Constant airspeed
Constant descent rate

Basically, have the landing configuration achieved with little or no corrections by establishing your heading, airspeed and descent angle prior to reaching these altitude milestones.

Any time this criteria is not met by these altitudes, you should GO-AROUND. You'll see how important this concept is to adhere to when it comes to flying low IFR.

 

[momalley81]

An example of a typical "stabilized approach" in GA:

IFR - Stabilized by 1000' AGL (ILS)
IFR - Stabilized by MDA (NP)
VFR - Stabilized by 500' AGL

Stabilized criteria:

Gear down
Flaps set
Heading established (for wind correction)
Steady needles
Constant airspeed
Constant descent rate

Basically, have the landing configuration achieved with little or no corrections by establishing your heading, airspeed and descent angle prior to reaching these altitude milestones.

Any time this criteria is not met by these altitudes, you should GO-AROUND. You'll see how important this concept is to adhere to when it comes to flying low IFR.

Forgot two-

135 freight >200-1/2 - Stabilized by the airport fence
135 freight <200-1/2 - Stabilized by DH

:laugh:

 

[Goose Egg]

At my company in the E-120 we consider an approach to be "stabilized" if the airplane is straight in, on approach speed, and configured for landing by 500' AGL for VFR approachs, and by 500' to approach minimums for IFR approaches. The beauty of flying part 91 is that within the FARs, you get to decide what you are comfortable with. I personally think that requiring yourself to be stabilized by 1000' in a light piston is probably overly conservative, but that's just me.

Every commercial student that I ever signed off (and they all passed) did the commercial maneuvers part of the checkride in a Cessna 172, and then did the pattern work in a Piper Arrow. It's the way to go, as far as I'm concerned.

One other thing that you may want to think about while flying the 210 is keep the engine from cooling down too quickly, i.e. "shock" cooling. High-airspeed/power-off descent, this could happen pretty easily, at least without some advanced planning. Just one more thing to think about... oh joy!

Take care and good luck.

-Goose

 

[Amish RakeFight]

At my company in the E-120 we consider an approach to be "stabilized" if the airplane is straight in, on approach speed, and configured for landing by 500' AGL for VFR approachs, and by 500' to approach minimums for IFR approaches. The beauty of flying part 91 is that within the FARs, you get to decide what you are comfortable with. I personally think that requiring yourself to be stabilized by 1000' in a light piston is probably overly conservative, but that's just me.

The poster inquired about 91 which I'll assume is for personal IFR flying in a light aircraft. What your company SOP's predicate with trained line pilots is one thing, but for a guy flying occasional 91 on instruments is another thing.

Stabilized at 1,000' in IMC isn't really that conservative for an ILS approach, especailly for a new instrument pilot. That's how I instructed instrument students to execute an ILS approach. Remember, most OM's are about 1,400 HAT and at 1,000' AGL, you're well into the commencement of the glideslope. If you really aren't stabilized (everything being close to a constant, with minimal corrections) by this point in the soup, you had BETTER go around. Chasing needles below 1,000 AGL in IMC is DANGEROUS. The plane should be in severe hands-off trim riding the rails with fingertip corrections.

 

[Goose Egg]

Stabilized at 1,000' in IMC isn't really that conservative for an ILS approach, especailly for a new instrument pilot.

Forgive me for not elaborating. When I said that being stabilized by 1000' in a light piston was overly conservative, I was referring only to visual approaches. I apologize for not making that clarification. Otherwise, I completely agree with you with one caveat...

That's how I instructed instrument students to execute an ILS approach. Remember, most OM's are about 1,400 HAT and at 1,000' AGL, you're well into the commencement of the glideslope. If you really aren't stabilized (everything being close to a constant, with minimal corrections) by this point in the soup, you had BETTER go around. Chasing needles below 1,000 AGL in IMC is DANGEROUS. The plane should be in severe hands-off trim riding the rails with fingertip corrections.

I think we both define a "stabilized" approach as being configured, on approach track/glideslope, on speed, and straight-in. I would suggest that it's probably better to fly an approach in IMC at a moderately higher speed than the slower approach speed, i.e. in a Cessna 172, for example, the airplane would be more stable and responsive to control inputs if the approach was flown at, say 90 KIAS as apposed to 65. Under the above stated definition, that isn't really "on-speed," and therefore not technically "stabilized." The higher airspeed could possibly dictate a different flap setting, depending on the airplane, so that wouldn't technically be "configured" either.

It wouldn't phase me at all to see a student fly across the marker at 90 kts and 10 degrees of flaps, expecting to slow to landing speed and configure for landing when visual conditions are reached. In fact, I think this is a much safer scenario than 65 kts and flaps 25 at the marker.

Maybe we could say that "configured" meant configured for the approach, and not necessarily the landing. They are two different things.

-Goose

 

[ALIMBO]

I always flew the approach at 90 and 10 flaps at the marker isnt that how its supposed to be done?

 

[Goose Egg]

I always flew the approach at 90 and 10 flaps at the marker isnt that how its supposed to be done?

I always thought so. That's what I told my students to do.

-Goose

 

[Amish RakeFight]

...........

Forgive me for not elaborating. When I said that being stabilized by 1000' in a light piston was overly conservative, I was referring only to visual approaches. I apologize for not making that clarification. Otherwise, I completely agree with you with one caveat...
Understood. You may have overlooked that I indicated the altitude (1,000') with the condition (ILS in IFR) in my first post. As I stated in that post, 500' would be appropriate for a VFR approach.

I think we both define a "stabilized" approach as being configured, on approach track/glideslope, on speed, and straight-in. That is certainly the jist of it and we both agree, in terms of answering the poster's question.

I would suggest that it's probably better to fly an approach in IMC at a moderately higher speed than the slower approach speed, i.e. in a Cessna 172, for example, the airplane would be more stable and responsive to control inputs if the approach was flown at, say 90 KIAS as apposed to 65. Very true. IFR and VFR have different speed management techniques. I taught something like 90D/80B/70F for a normal landing and maybe something closer to 1.3 for a performance landing. With the ILS approaches, 90 knots was a target for the entire ride down to minimums. For the reasons you've mentioned. It's actually easier to fly a mildly faster approach.

Under the above stated definition, that isn't really "on-speed," and therefore not technically "stabilized." The higher airspeed could possibly dictate a different flap setting, depending on the airplane, so that wouldn't technically be "configured" either. I'm not sure what you mean by the above stated definition as I didn't address a specific speed in the first post. Just that the determined ref speed would need to be constant and not fluctuating all over the place. This would obviously interfere with the stability trend of the other instrument parameters. I suppose what I was implying was that one should hold a constant speed. This speed should be stablized before reaching 1,000' AGL if for an ILS approach.

My mention of flaps and gears is that gear should be down and flaps set to approach configuration for the predetermined approach speed. It was implied that the flaps would be set ACCORDING to the specified appproahc speed which in this case, should be held constant.

It wouldn't phase me at all to see a student fly across the marker at 90 kts and 10 degrees of flaps, expecting to slow to landing speed and configure for landing when visual conditions are reached. In fact, I think this is a much safer scenario than 65 kts and flaps 25 at the marker. Student? heck, you'll find me keepin it up until short final and dumping everything. But that's only when one's become comfortable and even so, it strays from standardization which is a safety mechanism designed to prevent us from complacency and cowboy flying.

I never stated that speed should be as slow as 65. If at 25 you're refering to the midpoint (10/25/40) then I would allow that. Final flaps (40) should only be extended by DH when a landing on the runway is assured. VFR or IFR in almost all light aircraft.

Baascially, prior to reaching the OM, I wanted to see a stable 90 knots, 25 degrees and a wind correction heading with GS steady needles. No chasing. Once DH is reached and the runway is in sight, final flaps come in (depending on wind conditions).

Once in this stable condition, you're manual flying should be akin to an AP doing the job. The plane should be trimmed out for hands off speed and descent rate, allowing for only minor, fingertip corrections. No yanking, banking and throttle jocking to get to the targets while below the pertainent altitude (1,000', 500', MDA, etc.). If it takes more than minor corrections to stay within a couple of dots then I tell them to GO-AROUND.

Maybe we could say that "configured" meant configured for the approach, and not necessarily the landing. They are two different things. Same difference. I understand your distinction and maybe I confused the poster. The landing part can be treated as a second part to the approach configuration.

I think we both have the same thoughts, it's just that internet postings need clarification from time to time.

Cheers.


-Goose

 

[midlifeflyer]

I always flew the approach at 90 and 10 flaps at the marker isnt that how its supposed to be done?

Define "suppose to". If you're talking 172 or PA-28, I =generally= use 90 kts but do not use flaps for an ILS - never saw the benefit.

 

[ALIMBO]

So your saying you would just dump the flaps in when you would come into land, or land with no flaps? I mean its your discretion but to wait until the last second to slow down and dump them all is going to be a pita. To land with no flaps is also at your will but once again more of a pita especially if its a shorter runway then again I don't know any ILS' serving short runways but hey you never know.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't know an ILS serving a runway short enough that I would be concerned about a no-flap landing in a 172 or PA-28 (although I would probably end up with at least 1 notch in that 172 - I don't like the sight picture in a 172 no-flap landing). Faster airplane with higher flap down speeds, different story.

"Dumping" is a nice picturesque term, but sounds far worse than the reality. I don't find it to be a pita in the least.

But let me turn the question around - how do you respond to an ATC request to keep your speed up on an ILS at a busier airport with the flaps down?

Note the "generally." If conditions warrant, you adjust. So would I.

 

[Goose Egg]

I don't know an ILS serving a runway short enough that I would be concerned about a no-flap landing in a 172 or PA-28 (although I would probably end up with at least 1 notch in that 172 - I don't like the sight picture in a 172 no-flap landing).

That's my thought process as well; a no-flap landing shouldn't really be much of a concern. And I can't think of an ILS-runway so short that a no-flap landing would be ill-advised (at least in a 172/fixed-gear Cherokee), although I'm sure there's probably one out there somewhere, which means, as you said, you make adjustments to technique.

As for the 172, if I remember right, you can have 10 degrees of flaps up to 110 KIAS, so there's really no reason not to have 10 degrees in on an approach. Other airplanes may vary.

-Goose

 

[Amish RakeFight]

ALIMO,

The point being, as a new instrument student or new to the airplane while on instruments, practice standardization for each approach. Do the same thing, at the same point during an approach. By adhering to a standard procedure of setting up for an approach, you ingrain this into your memory and it becomes second nature. You don't have to consciously think about what your next move is. It's been predetermined and performed over and over again.

At some point in your flying career, you may experience an abnormal or emergency situation just as you begin that approach or even during the ride down. One of the worst times, especially in a twin. If you're gonna be at all capable of handling this unexpected situation, you better be able to configure your plane properly while coping with the emergency itself. The stress, pressure and farkin worry will be distracting enough (some freeze up) and if you have hodge podge procedures which aren't standardized, you'll have nothing to regress back to. I have been in some situations where my emotions (fear) hijacks my thinking and skills momentarily, but my redundant training and procedures (regradless of how I'm feeling inside emotionally about the situation) allows me to execute the VERY FAMILIAR procedures I've incorporated and practiced. It's almost like your body does it for you.

It's all good and fun to firewall it to the threshold, then dump the flaps, slip (full flap slips not approved in all planes) to hit that first turn off. In VFR it can be fun and challenging. But when it comes to flying in low IFR and having to shoot an approach, you'd have better have a good foundation and know how to standardize and stabilize your approach. Flying light GA in IMC single pilot is a HEAVY workload and the more standardized you make things, the safer your flight will be.

 

[ALIMBO]

But let me turn the question around - how do you respond to an ATC request to keep your speed up on an ILS at a busier airport with the flaps down?

Note the "generally." If conditions warrant, you adjust. So would I.

Being in the 172 i would keep flaps at 10 and speed at 110 if thats not fast enough then they can send me around or the other traffic can do that. If its the 210 Ill keep it up to 140 which is below VFE for 10 deg. and VLE and once again if its not fast enough then they can tell me what to do from there.