Flaps and the FAF

[minitour]

Just found out today (actually for the second time) that I'm probably going to bust my instrument ride if I put the flaps down prior to the FAF.

Does anyone have any reasoning behind this attitude (other than an ego trip for the examiner) ?

The reasons I'm doing this:
1. Stabilize the approach
2. Maintain 90kts in the descent
3. Maintain my altitudes and airspeeds to tighter tolerances
4. I won't have to toss in a ton of flaps and work real hard to slow it down on short final when I don't have to go missed

Any opinions on this?
I'm well below 110kts (10* Flaps Vfe in my 172) obviously, at 90kts. I really can't think of why I shouldn't put the flaps in and I can't seem to kick the habit...its just in there as part of the approach "checklist" that I go through...any ideas on what to do?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

-mini

 

[JRSLim]

Did the Examimer tell you this or imply this?


You don't want full flaps before you make the FAF, because then you'll be dragging the airplane in. However, putting out 10 degrees BEFORE THE FAF to stabilize it and help your speed is appropriate. In a retractable gear aircraft its common to drop the gear just before the FAF which usually helps get the decent to about where you want it. Once you have the Glide slope on the ILS, you don't want to make any configuration changes - adding flaps at this point will cause the airplane to balloon and it one more thing to increase your workload. Once you are at DH and have visual with the runway in sight and are in a position to land, you know you're not going missed and you can get the rest of the flaps out and make the landing.
On a non-precesion you'll also want to hold off on full flaps, but you can get them out as necessary if you need the help descending.

 

[mmmdonut]

Who's going to bust you on this?

Does the PTS say "no flaps until inside FAF?"


I SAY BULLLSHHHHHHIIIIAAAATTTTTTTTT!

 

[100LL... Again!]

This is BS, and any examiner who would bust you for this does not deserve to be an examiner.


Your reasons for extending partial flap (I'm assuming you meant partial) are all correct.

Where is this school and who is telling you not to put the flaps down?

Go get the IFR PTS and show me where this is a bustable item.

 

[bigD]

If you have reliable info that you'll bust if you dump any flaps before the FAF, then I say just do what you need to do to pass the ride.

But in reality, that's complete crap. In the Cessna 340, if I get slam dunked onto the ILS and I'm having a hard time slowing down prior to intercepting the localizer, I'm doing whatever I need to do to slow down. The plane allows 160 knots for the first 15 degrees, and hell yeah, I'm gonna use it. Just be ready with the trim!

 

[minitour]

Thanks guys for the help

I was actually told by my instructor that the examiner would probably ask "What the F*ck are you doing? Forget it, lets go back"

I didn't think it was a big issue to put in 10* as long as I'm below 110...of course I wouldn't think about dropping anything more than that...just 10* to calm everything down...

Its probably an ego thing for the examiner, but I really don't feel like flying an approach without flaps is a great idea...I could see if I lost my electrical system and couldn't put them down, but then again, whos to say I'd have nav radios and be able to shoot the approach in the first place...I'd probably be lucky to stay upright...

Anyway, I guess it just caught me off guard...I mean even in PVT instruction I wasn't told to wait until short final to start thinking about flaps...the whole getting ahead of the airplane thing...

Well guys I really appreciate it...thanks for the help!

-mini

 

[smokinhole]

The K.I.S.S. Method

Or you could just show him you're the man and just fly the ILS with no flaps @ 100 KIAS. Try it sometime. You won't be dragging the aircraft and slogging down the ILS @ 90KIAS frustrating the controllers. Plus it's one less thing to think about. Reduce power at the FAF and slide on down the GS. Nice and simple. If you are flying a actual IFR approach to minimums in a 172, don't even worry about putting in flaps to land just break out and slow it up and roll it on. Runway length should'nt be an issue. If you have a ILS to the field, 99% of the time you are pretty much guaranteed enough runway to get any light single or twin on the ground and stopped with room to spare.

By the way, tell your instructor to quit making up stuff

Good luck on the ride!
S.H.

BTW....this is just a technique, not a procedure. There is nothing wrong with flying the approach with flaps. I'm just giving my perspective based on my experiences with students. I'm all for keeping things as simple as possible and when flying an ILS the fewer configuration changes the better.

 

[350DRIVER]

One of the guys in my upgrade class a few years ago who couldn't fly himself out of a box if his life depended on it thought he would not put any flaps down in the B100 until he was inside of the FAF and you want to talk about one hell of an unstabilized approach, needless to say the fed onboard chalked this one up as a bust.

When you start flying the bigger and faster iron you will appreciate what "partial" or "approach flaps" will do for the aircraft with regards to a stabilized approach. I have never heard of anyone being pink slipped on any ride for utilizing partial approach flaps prior to reaching the faf. I certainly wouldn't have full flaps down at this point but the last thing you want to do is come roaring down the final approach course extremely fast and unstabilized.

I would go right to the top if your II continues to tell you things along this line. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my personal opinion and seems to go against common sense for the most part.

There is no reason why any check airman, fed, dpe, can bust you for this, atleast I have never seen or heard of it happening to anyone. This is one ego driven industry so quite possibly it is simply a case of your instructor trying to inject his $.02, I don't know but needless to say I would not want any part of this. This practice will only cause you problems as you advance into the bigger and faster equipment.

I certainly would get clarification from Wil Degraw(sp?) if he is still the chief at Airman. This seems to be the complete opposite of how we did things many moons ago when I got my II out there.

Some things can change but this practice I have a hard time buying into such a change in teaching technique.

good luck,

3 5 0

(fresh out of the penalty box for what it is worth)

 

[Fly_Chick]

10 Degrees of flaps is fine on an instrument approach.

Outside of the checkride, be sure to practice approaches and landings with no flaps. You may have an electrical failure, or icing, which would preclude you from using flaps. You come in a little faster, yet it is good experience to be able to land any plane without flaps.

 

[350DRIVER]

10 Degrees of flaps is fine on an instrument approach.

Outside of the checkride, be sure to practice approaches and landings with no flaps. You may have an electrical failure, or icing, which would preclude you from using flaps. You come in a little faster, yet it is good experience to be able to land any plane without flaps.

You could fly a small single at 120kts and keep the needles crossed all the way down the "love course" aka ILS with no flaps, I have done it many times in a A-36 back in the day going into DFW many times when ATC requested max forward speed but it is the "principle" that is in question here. You do not want to be taught the wrong techniques from the get-go, not smart or safe in my opinion.

This possibly can and will come back to haunt any young, low time, "new" pilot when he or she transitions into the larger equipment if this is how they "learned" to do things.

It is better to learn the right way from day 1 versus buying into a teaching technique that is "wrong" and "flawed" in my opinion.

He will have plenty of opportunity to have a simulated flap failure, icing problems, etc, etc, at the appropriate time and place. When you first start learning how to fly the ILS approach and this is what is being taught I think it is "wrong".

If his CFI wants to simulate no-flap approaches, simulated failures, etc, then that is fine and great. He needs to be clear about this and not try and instruct him to fly normal approaches this way.

just my $.02

3 5 0

 

[minitour]

Thanks again for all the help guys...I guess I have a better grasp on this than I thought!

I guess my concern wasn't necessarily the ILS because you don't really *need* to time it...if you lose the GS you could always go missed and come back for the localizer only approach. But my concern was more for the non-precision timed approaches like the LOCs and VORs. If I want to be as accurate as possible on the times from FAF to MAP, I've got to keep that speed pegged at 90kts (+/- for wind) and its a real P.I.T.A. to keep it exactly on 90 with no flaps when you're trying to drop it down 800-900fpm...too much work, if you ask me...

I guess another question is (sort of related).

Lets say I've got an approach where the MAP is station passage (VOR-A in this case).
I've been told to fly the approach as fast as possible since I don't have to worry about timing it...my thoughts are this:
1. This is a training thing and to expedite the practice approaches we're flying it fast
2. I should be flying it at a normal approach speed so (again) I can make the transition to landing as normal as possible...

So I guess I have conflicting thoughts on this one...

Guess I'll just have to go check with the examiner to see what he thinks about all of it...I want to be able to pass the checkride, but as 350 pointed out, I don't want to be screwed later on in life trying to fly something bigger than a 172...

Thanks again for all the help!

-mini

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

Just keep the power at 2500 and pitch for 130

I certainly would get clarification from Wil Degraw(sp?) if he is still the chief at Airman. This seems to be the complete opposite of how we did things many moons ago when I got my II out there.

Yeah he's still there, I was up there to get my CFII not but a three months ago. Just go talk to Will; he's a good guy.

He had a bail of hay in the bed and a carton of smokes in the cab of his truck every day.

 

[mmmdonut]

You should never be under any pressure to fly an approach fast. If you're in a C172 and 90kts is the speed - then 90kts is the speed. Apch doesn't like it? Tell them to vector you around for another shot when traffic permits.

Training is a different animal, but when you start doing it regularly in the soup - it's best to have a standard way and standard speed for doing approaches. One of my biggest foulups while flying happened when I forgot approach flaps in a Baron while trying to land on a 3500' runway after an ILS to mins. I should have gone around... bald spotted a tire instead.

There's no excuse for being rushed and making mistakes.

 

[350DRIVER]

I guess my concern wasn't necessarily the ILS because you don't really *need* to time it...if you lose the GS you could always go missed and come back for the localizer only approach. But my concern was more for the non-precision timed approaches like the LOCs and VORs. If I want to be as accurate as possible on the times from FAF to MAP, I've got to keep that speed pegged at 90kts (+/- for wind) and its a real P.I.T.A. to keep it exactly on 90 with no flaps when you're trying to drop it down 800-900fpm...too much work, if you ask me...

But....

If you lose the GS and you have not timed the approach then how do you know when you have arrived at the MAP?. The reason being that you time the approach is in the event that you do lose the GS you can continue until the pre-determined time has expired and you have "reached" the MAP and that that point you would execute the missed approach instructions as noted on the IAP.

Most of the operators require both or atleast the npf to time the approach, usually written in either the fom or ops specs.

Time every approach if it is applicable and "time" is noted on the IAP, no and's, if's, but's about it my friend.

As for the Loc/Vor/Ndb approaches alike, I would also use some sort of partial flaps prior to reaching to faf, it will allow you to maintain a more stabilized approach and help you maintain a certain profile.

Yeah he's still there, I was up there to get my CFII not but a three months ago. Just go talk to Will; he's a good guy.

He was one kool red neck dude with an Oklahoma attitude from what I remember. Surely someone you want to be on his "good side". If he disliked ya for whatever reason then watch out !! !!.

3 5 0

 

[Flyguy6]

I did my instrument training in a Cessna 150. I never used flap on the final approach until well afetr the FAF when I was about to land. I had no probelms holding 90 kts. during the approach.

 

[aeronautic1]

Slats

Let's see in our G200, slats and kruegers below 250 knots, flaps 20 within 15 miles (speed check) of the FAF, gear down and flaps 40 at the FAF (unless on single eng approach of course). Look, if you are within the speed envelope of the flap settings on approach, use them. This will limit the amount of sudden pitch change on the approach from barley managable to suave, not to mention speed control! Remember, it's all about finesse factor.

 

[cessna_driver2]

Mini,
I did my Instrument in a 172r. I shot the approach at 100 kts w/ 10 degrees of flaps. I passed w/ no problems. Just be ready to explain why you choose to use the flaps.

The 141 school I went to taught us to have first 10 out. This does help slow you down. My first part 61 instructor always jumped my case when I put 10 degrees in above 100 kts. Every time I had to keep telling him that the first 10 is approved & placard at 110.

Try shooting the approach at 100kts w/ 10 degrees. It is a little faster but it helps keep it stable & more responsive.

2 more things to remember when you’re on your check ride. 1) You are PIC. Just be ready to explain why you did something. 2) They cannot grade you until the maneuver is complete.


Good luck

 

[Kaman]

Hello,

My personal opinion is that the airplane should be configured and stabilized at the final approach speed prior to the FAF. Of course, how far from the FAF is a a function of the speed of the aircraft in which one is flying. With the airplane configured and on-speed a simple power (remember attitude flying?) adjustment should have you coming down the ILS or descending to MDA with a lot less fuss than trying to configure, 5-T's and the rest. I taught it this way and never heard a complaint from the examiner I sent my instrument students to.

Regards,

Ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[minitour]

Hello,

My personal opinion is that the airplane should be configured and stabilized at the final approach speed prior to the FAF. Of course, how far from the FAF is a a function of the speed of the aircraft in which one is flying. With the airplane configured and on-speed a simple power (remember attitude flying?) adjustment should have you coming down the ILS or descending to MDA with a lot less fuss than trying to configure, 5-T's and the rest. I taught it this way and never heard a complaint from the examiner I sent my instrument students to.

Regards,

Ex-Navy Rotorhead

So Power controls the descent down the Glide Slope on the ILS? Cuz I guess thats another thread, but different people are teaching pitch and power...just kinda curious...

Obviously I figured I'd have to make a power reduction while on the descent because otherwise I'd be over my 90kts...

So its
1. Establish the plane on the approach speed prior to the FAF
2. Set the approach flaps *just* prior to the FAF (in the 172-obviously if its a faster/larger aircraft you've gotta plan ahead)
3. Power setting to maintain the GS at 90kts (so NOT Pitch Power Trim?)

Confusing...I guess I never really gave it much thought as to HOW I went down the glide slope...I just kinda do it adjusting Pitch and Power and Trim as needed...

Thanks for the help folks! Really appreciate it!

-mini

 

[Kaman]

Hello,

And, a good question...Think of it this way. You have the airplane configured and trimmed for 90 knots. Glideslope comes in, and you reduce the power to track the glideslope. The airplane is trimmed for 90 knots, and it will naturally pitch down to seek that trimmed airspeed. What is required is a good understanding of the airplane you are flying and the proper pitch/power relationships for the various profiles (non-precision descent, ILS, etc...). Hope this makes sense?

regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[minitour]

Hello,

And, a good question...Think of it this way. You have the airplane configured and trimmed for 90 knots. Glideslope comes in, and you reduce the power to track the glideslope. The airplane is trimmed for 90 knots, and it will naturally pitch down to seek that trimmed airspeed. What is required is a good understanding of the airplane you are flying and the proper pitch/power relationships for the various profiles (non-precision descent, ILS, etc...). Hope this makes sense?

regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

Awesome!!!

Yeah, when you explain it that way it makes perfect sense...kinda like a "make the airplane work FOR you rather than you work for the airplane" kinda thing...

Thanks!!

-mini

 

[Goose Egg]

Just my own $0.02, but I like to have the airplane configured for the approach prior to crossing the FAF. That means that the gear is down, approach flaps are set (10 degrees in this case), and the pre-landing checklist is complete (prop full forward, etc.) I'm sorry, but tracking a both a localizer and glideslope is not the place to be making wild configuration changes. I always thought that the purpose of the intermediate approach segment was to get the airplane stablized in the landing configuration and at the approach airspeed.

Anyone that would fail you for that... have them show you in the PTS where it says that applies, if they still fail you, put a stop payment on that DE's check.. and contact your nearest FSDO.

Dang straight.

-Goose

 

[Kaman]

Well said, Goose Egg...

I find it very difficult to believe than an examiner would bust someone for flying an approach in the manner in which you teach it. It certainly defies all the logic behind that "stabilized approach concept" that the FAA advocates.
Instrument flying is so much easier when you plan ahead, and act ahead...I'd also suggest going out with an instructor and going through various profiles and noting the pitch/power targets. Then it's a matter of minor adjustments...Just like the FAA also advocates..."establish, trim, cross-check and adjust". I've told my students that 90% of instrument flying is contained in the 8-9 pages of attitude instrument flying in the IFH.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead