Glideslope and visual approaches

[goldentrout]

OK guys, you've pretty much got me convinced, but...as I read all these FARs, it talks about glideslope to the MM, or until landing is assured. What I do on a visual is stay on the gideslope until the MM, and then just shift my aimpoint slighlty short of where the glideslope would take me. It just involves cracking the power slightly and adjusting the pitch maybe one degree nose low. This usually saves me 500-1000' of runway on landing.

I'm just wondering about that snowy, icy day on a short runway, when I end up in the opposite overrun by "500-1000'."

In any case, all you guys seem experienced and I'm willing to listen to the voice of experience...thanks for the discussion.

 

[beytzim]

Goldentrout, stick to your guns! Be assertive. Don't let these guys bully you around. You are right. As the PIC, the aircraft commander, the Captain - YOU have the responsibilty for the safety of the aircraft.

Just because there's a reg out there -does NOT mean that it's the safest thing to do at all times. You have the Captain's authority to waive off of any reg out there for safety. Just be prepared to explain to this paper pushers at your FSDO.

Example: it's slushy runway with a slight tailwind, and your thrust reversers are MEL'd. In addition, the runway availible is legal but only by 100' or so. So you're totally legal - SO WHAT! a hundred feet makes you legal...big deal. This is why we, pilots, get paid the big bucks. To make the tough decisions. Is it better to duck and save 500-1000 feet or is it better to be legal? What happens if you followed the G/S to touchdown and you blow a tire right at 100 knots with 2000 feet left. I bet you wished you had 3000 feet left! But hey, you're legal!

We are not monkeys (atleast some of us). We are paid to think AND act.

My 2 cents. Good Luck!

 

[profile]

This is why we, pilots, get paid the big bucks. To make the tough decisions. Is it better to duck and save 500-1000 feet or is it better to be legal?

Ever consider a diversion? You use your logic to violate the regs and explanation that is what the reply will be. Time to go to the alternate or pick a different runway.

 

[Mickey757]

"It's slussy, you have a slight tailwind, and your reverser's are MEL'd "

Given the above conditions you still want to land on that runway? one that is barely legal by 100'? ( your runway limited )

Dude, you need to work on your decision making skill's before you hurt yourself!

 

[SentryIP]

Decisions...Good,Better, Best

beytzim,

Example: it's slushy runway with a slight tailwind, and your thrust reversers are MEL'd. In addition, the runway availible is legal but only by 100' or so. So you're totally legal - SO WHAT! a hundred feet makes you legal...big deal. This is why we, pilots, get paid the big bucks. To make the tough decisions. Is it better to duck and save 500-1000 feet or is it better to be legal?

Sounds like a better decision would have been to fix the TRs before takeoff and/or not land with a tailwind and/or wait until the runway is clear. These are tough decisions, but hey, that's why we make the big bucks. I hope you're not mentoring younger pilots on your "duck under" technique. You're setting yourself up for a touchdown prior to the runway. You'll hurt somebody someday. Fly safe.

SentryIP

 

[beytzim]

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a bunch of 121 guys. Any kind of problems: "Call Dispatch or Cancel the Flight or Let's Divert".

The rest of us who fly in the 135/91 world with no dispatch department and some CEO in the back have to make decisions on the fly. If you ever wonder why everyone hates flying the airlines, it's simple - you guys cancel a flight because there maybe some rain on the runway.... You guys don't know how easy you have it.

I'm NOT a daredevil - far from it. But unless you've flown serious fly by night 135 or 91 ops, don't preach.

I could go on forever how 121 guys cancel or divert for the silliest things (with mommy's (dispatch) approval, of course)..but I think I made enough enemies for one night!

I'm not insulting you. It's just reality - AND I can't wait till I fly for the Majors - just so I can cancel flights and go to the hotel like you guys! Can't wait!

Fly Safe,

beytzim

 

[Lrjet55]

Don't bother

I wouldn't bother attempting to explain real world piloting skills to a bunch of 121 guys. It takes them hours to read a dispatch list when it takes us 135/91 guys 20 minutes to get airborne. I am not bashing any type of flying or pilot whether it is 91/121/135. I just know that corporate pilots makes real world descisions in real time situations. We don't have the luxury of sitting on the ground somewhere for 3 hours waiting for someone else to make the descision. I have flown with corporate guys and airlines guys all around. I'll take my Simuflite/Flight Safety cohort any day of the week and twice on Sunday. At the very least I won't have to monitor his social skills with the passengers or snatch the yoke from him/her when he/she attempts to flare my airplane at 50 feet!
Happy trails fellas'

 

[flydog]

Guys that duck under learn a harsh lesson when the wind shears 20 kts on short final. Better to divert than to risk your life and your career.

By the way most landing charts are not predicated on use of TRs. For the most part they dont decrease landing distance tremendously on light jets. On a Hawker or Westwind its a couple of hundred feet with their efficiency going up at higher weights and ref speeds.

 

[xrjpilot]

Look at the stats

yes, 91/135 guys fly in the bad stuff.

Green = Go
Yellow = be carefull
Red = be more carefull
(radar returns)

the check you fly around don't care about severe turbulance. How many of you (91/135) get violated and/or get killed every year? Compare that to the number of 121 mishaps/accidents/deaths...

Flying 121 isn't all about getting there in one piece, It's also about customer service. The people in the back are worth more than any settlement that a carrier can offer to their families. If the people in the back of the 135/91 actually knew the risks that they pressure you to fly in, I guarentee they would re-think how important that meeting is. A multi million dollar deal can be signed tomorrow unless the CEO died trying to get to the meeting the day before.

Back to the original topic...

Stay on the glide. If you punch out of the clouds at 500' and dive below the VASI 3.5 degrees your eyes may not be adjusted to the outside enough to see powerlines/ trees etc. I would rather land 10 KIAS fast on 35 PHL than have to high speed reject a TO on that runway.

Either way the PIC is the FINAL athority.

 

[firstthird]

I'm military for now but we've had the same issues over the years. My current manual calls for landing in the first 500-1000 feet and not past the first third of the runway.

Some guys advocate ducting below glideslope in order to plant it on the numbers, especially when the conditions are bad (snow/ice) but unfortunately that is when ducking below is the most dangerous.

Two different P-3s have landed short in Maine over the last 5 years as a result of ducking below glideslope. When there is snow everywhere the threshold is difficult to determine and the white everywhere plays havoc with a pilot's depth perception. Very similar to the black hole effect, not to mention the reduced visibility that tends to make a pilot think they are higher than they actually are, prompting them to drop lower than they should.

Long story short, in both incidents the aircraft broke out into more or less visual conditions and ended up touching down about 150 short of the runway. Neither knew it had happened till the next guy saw the tire tracks coming in from the grass (snow in these cases). Fortunately, with the rock hard ground, no damage to either plane.

But the lesson is the same, glideslope is there for a reason and if a pilot develops a habit of ducking under to save that 500 feet of runway, they will probably duck under when the weather is bad/cards are down and visual reference is less than usual, and might misjudge it and end up in the weeds rather than on pavement.

Most of the regulations are there for a reason. Don't pull a fence down until you know why it was put up. Not sure who said that, but I think you could apply it to regulations as well.

just my 2 cents,
Firstthird