Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Pitch and Power on the ILS

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Bernoulli, you're a CFI right? One thing to remember that lots of guys have done over time to not overload the student with information. I've seen way to many CFI's that wanted to show how much knowledge they had which led to confused students in the end. I liked the KISS method and it worked very well for me. I was able to get students through their ratings faster than usual for my school.

I taught the basics. Pitch, power, trim. In that order because students will try to fly the airplane with trim if you'll let them and they will chase all day. Sure. let them make big changes but hold off on the final pitch until cruise is achieved. So far as pitch and power, pick a spot on the runway on final, make it "THE" spot to "pitch" for. I used to use dry erase or little stickers on the windshield. Put the sticker on the spot and use power to get the airspeed right. It's amazing how quick a student will develop a stabalized approach doing that.

Pitch, power, trim.

BTW, I love the, "Pitch for airspeed down the runway." Classic. Wish I had heard it sooner.
 
As stated by an examiner that I did most of my rides with:

"When people say pitch for airspeed, power for altitude, I tell them on takeoff not use any power, just give me some pitch. If your theory is correct, then pitching us down the runway should give us all the airspeed we need for takeoff!"

I got a kick out of that.

Let's say I am at 5000' and I lose an engine...I can maintain any airspeed I want but I cannot maintain altitude (at least not for long).

But...you are right. Just giving you a hard time.

It has been answered over and over....it takes both. A change in one always results in a change in the other.

Also, like someone else mentioned, if you are planning to move up to jets do yourself a favor and power for airspeed and pitch for altitude.
 
i shoot ILS approaches at 100kts in a 172. when i intercept the glideslope, i throttle back to around 1800-2000 rpm, which will keep my speed at or around 100kts and follow the glideslope down. once i am 400-500ft above DH, i start to slow myself up by putting in 10 degrees of flaps and pitching back a bit, while reducing power to keep on the glideslope. then, as i see fit, i try to slow down more with flaps and pitch until i either land or go missed.
 
Pitch should always be used to control path and power for airspeed. But if you change one you will need to change the other.

There are only two situations when you should use pitch for airspeed:

1. When the power is fixed (Full power, no power...).
2. When you are on the back side of the power curve (Slow flight, carrier landing..).
 
Axel said:
In theory, if the airplane is trimmed a power change will result in a change in descent angle accompanied by a pitch change without pilot input as the airplane seeks its trimmed AOA.

In practice, pilot A pitches to maintain the descent angle and adjusts power to maintain the speed. Pilot B adjusts power to maintain the descent angle and pitches to maintain speed.

End result: the same in all respects.
Axel...
You are correct, but you're not really considering the effects that mass and inertia bring to the party as aircraft size increases - and we're not just talking 747s here either. Any pilot understands the relationship between pitch and power (or their instructor has really screwed up.) It's just my personal opinion, but when you are teaching a student how to fly an ILS it's best to teach the method that works best in all aircraft. Like you said, the results are the same for either Pilot A or Pilot B if he happens to be flying a Cessna 172. The results won't be the same if Pilot B happens to be flying a Cessna Citation. Make it easy on Pilot B and teach him Pilot A's technique - that way he won't have to relearn it later if or when he get to fly larger airplanes.

'Sled
 
"once i am 400-500ft above DH, i start to slow myself up by putting in 10 degrees of flaps and pitching back a bit, while reducing power to keep on the glideslope. then, as i see fit, i try to slow down more with flaps and pitch until i either land or go missed."

I know that this works for you and I'm not being critical, but as your flying progresses and you move into bigger and faster a/c you'll find that the philosophy of a stabilized approach will become more and more important. At every airline I know of you must be established on glide, at approach speed, and fully configured to land by no later than 500AGL and that's in VMC. At our airline if it's IMC you must be stabilized by 1000 AGL or a missed approach is required.

I know your 172 is a lot different than an airliner but let me recommend establishing your own stabilized approach policy and then commit yourself to sticking with it. As you transition to turbine equipment it will be one less thing to incorporate into your flying.

Good luck.
 
i can see what you're getting at, caveman, but i dont' want to be dragging the 172 in at 80kts with 20 degrees of flaps 7 miles out. i know that in jets and other larger, faster aircraft, it is possible and neccessary to get established and stabilized pretty early on an ILS or any approach. but as a consideration to ATC, the tower, and others on final, i'll keep my speed up so as to keep things moving. this is, of course, when i'm shooting ILS's under the hood or while training. in real life IMC (which i've never tried to land in before) i will probably get the a/c stabilized pretty far out and going at a reasonable but slow speed so as to give myself plenty of time to deal with any situations that might occur while i'm on final.
 
Point taken. I was getting at the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.
 
Axel said:
Point taken. I was getting at the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.
remind me never to play you in scrabble... :)
 
cforst513,

I agree that dragging a 172 in at 80 KIAS from way out is inappropriate but you should still establish your own stabilized approach policy appropriate for the a/c. Our's roughly equates to about 45 seconds from landing at 500AGL and about 1.5 minutes for 1000 AGL. The 1000' point is inside the outer marker and even in a 172 if you are inside the marker that airspace and runway is all yours. Shame on ATC for crowding you inside that airspace. Your point is well taken though. A 172 is a lot slower than a CRJ and what is appropriate for one may or may not be appropriate for the other but a stabilized approach policy appropriate for the a/c is a good idea.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top