Landing below glideslope?

[jetfo]

Remember that operations under Parts 121 and 135 are also beholden to Part 91. Parts 119, 121, and 135 merely add additional restrictions to the general operating regulations.

Clearly this means you should stay on GS at least until the MM and then proceed visually as required. You can also follow the VASI/PAPI at that point.

 

[avbug]

Clearly this means you should stay on GS at least until the MM and then proceed visually as required.

Not should. Must. You are required to remain on or above the glideslope between the outermarker and middle marker. This isn't optional.

See 14 CFR 91.129(e)(2)

You can also follow the VASI/PAPI at that point.

Not can. Must. You are remain at or above the glideslope when approaching to land at a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator.

See 91.129(e)(3).

You are required to remain above the visual glidepath until descent below it is necessary for a safe landing.

 

[minitour]

That was a joke, right??

Did it make you chuckle?

-mini

 

[avbug]

It might, if only otherwise-professionals didn't believe that sort of thing, to say nothing of the students and novices killed every year because an otherwise-professional taught it to them. It's a joke, right?

 

[Catbert]

You are required to remain above the visual glidepath until descent below it is necessary for a safe landing.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's clearly legal to descend below the visual glidepath when necessary for a safe landing. So, the real question is: when is it necessary, if ever?

 

[avbug]

When it's safer to go below and use all the runway than it is to waste the runway and land down a third of it.

When is it safe to go below...when you have obstacles in sight, and can, in your professional judgement, do so.

In the summer time, I shoot to land well short of the runway and my wheels touch the tarmac on the end...I don't waste any. I'd sure feel like an idiot needing runway and leaving it behind.

Other types of operations, I don't do that...but some, I do. Where it's necessary, and appropriate. The airplane isn't on rails; it's flexible, and can be made to do what one needs it to do. Safely, professionally, and legally.

The circumstance dictates, as always.

 

[Slippery Mick]

What is the reg that deals with landing below glideslope when landing is assured?

I'm not sure. But I recommend never, ever trying to land above the glideslope. Those last few feet really, really hurt.

 

[Blackjet]

There is not just 1 correct answer for this question. He didn't state what the conditions were. In IMC, deviating from the GS is foolish, especially going below it. When the WX and VIS is down, there ar ejust not enough visual cues to judge height safely. If you are runway limited, maybe the conditions are not suitable to be landing at that particular field. Staying on the GS puts you 1000 feet down the runway. Can you afford to eat that 1000 feet?

On the other hand, there are several instances where getting off the GS would be smart. A flaps Zero landing (in a JET) is one of those instances. A visual approach backed up with an ILS is just that, a visual approach, and you are under no requirement to fly the GS down. Finally, being runway limited in VMC would be another instance where flying below the GS would be something to consider.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There is not just 1 correct answer for this question. He didn't state what the conditions were.

In reality he did...he asked about going below glideslope "when the landing is assured", which most of us have taken to mean he can see the runway.

On the other hand, there are several instances where getting off the GS would be smart. A flaps Zero landing (in a JET) is one of those instances. A visual approach backed up with an ILS is just that, a visual approach, and you are under no requirement to fly the GS down. Finally, being runway limited in VMC would be another instance where flying below the GS would be something to consider.

You might doublecheck 91.129(e)(2) for airports in Class D airspace:

A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope, if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires interception closer in) and the middle marker; and

The only exception you'd get is if you considered the no-flap landing an emergency, unlike using the visual approach slope indicator in paragraph (e)(3):

An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Blackjet]

In reality he did...he asked about going below glideslope "when the landing is assured", which most of us have taken to mean he can see the runway.

Well, landing assured does not mean the runway can be seen. That is called runway in sight. I dont think any instructor has told you or anyone else that "landing assured means runway can be seen. Landing assured is when you can pull the power to idle or loose all propulsion and make the runway, not just the field. For example, when flying a single engine approach with an aircraft with 2 or more engines, the last increment of flaps is usually held until landing is assured. That would mean just about at the runway. That is where my confusion was as to his situation.

You might doublecheck 91.129(e)(2) for airports in Class D airspace:

You got me there. I was not familiar with that regulation, but I did look it up and indeed you are correct.

The only exception you'd get is if you considered the no-flap landing an emergency, unlike using the visual approach slope indicator in paragraph (e)(3):
Fly safe!

David

Personally, in most situations I would NOT consider 0 flaps an emergency, nor do I think it justifies an emergency, once again, in most cases, but not all. 0 Flaps is one of those situations where you are going to have to use superior judgement that usually keeps you out of situations that would require use of your superior skiils, but in this case, both are going to have to be present in order to have a desire outcome. Good luck to you as well, and thanks for the heads up on the "D" FAR.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well, landing assured does not mean the runway can be seen. That is called runway in sight. I dont think any instructor has told you or anyone else that "landing assured means runway can be seen. Landing assured is when you can pull the power to idle or loose all propulsion and make the runway, not just the field. For example, when flying a single engine approach with an aircraft with 2 or more engines, the last increment of flaps is usually held until landing is assured. That would mean just about at the runway. That is where my confusion was as to his situation.

Just so we're on the same page, I assume you wouldn't consider the landing assured if you couldn't see the runway?

I guess accuracy in terminology is important

David

 

[Blackjet]

Just so we're on the same page, I assume you wouldn't consider the landing assured if you couldn't see the runway?

I guess accuracy in terminology is important

David

You bet, especially in aviation, the termonology is life. The way I understand, interpert, and operate is as follows:
Typically, landing assured always involves the runway being in sight, but the runway in sight does not involve landing assured.
I guess what I am saying is that if the runway is in sight, the landing is not assured, but if the landing is assured, the runway is in sight. Either way, the airplane is eventually going to land, but the key is getting close enough to the runway to land on.

 

[Bandit60]

nevermind