My First ILS to minimums

[DanWEC]

This thread in all its elements absolutely perfectly encapsulates Avcanada!

Btw- big runway, small plane, stable approach, therefore lots of room to safely manoeuvre and correct the deviation laterally. In this situation, It's a nicely managed first ILS to minimums for sure. They'll just get better.

[justwork]

As soon as there was a link to a video I knew there would be a lot of perfect avcanadians criticizing the hell out of it. The video is from the back seat, no one knows what the view was from the front seat except the pilot. Yup, he didn't have it nailed. He did however shoot it to mins, get the runway in sight, correct for centre line, and safely land. If he was a professional there would be an argument for "stabilized approach", as far as I can tell he is hand bombing his own private plane.

I've actual seen worse approaches flown with a flight director and no AP in the 705 world. I've also seen guys with bags of experience go full scale in the simulator when you take away the AP, AT, and FD.

To the original poster, good job. You have room for improvement, with more experience you'll be breaking out and only needing to flare. As Cat has mentioned, you did a very smooth job getting it back on centre line once you broke out. Keep practicing.

[dirtdr]

So there is room for improvement. I get it. But that has not been what has been beating me up over this approach.

What gets me is why I was there in the first place?

I am a private pilot. My own airplane. Very current (for a weekend warrior). I fly this plane close to 50 hrs/month. I have had my instrument rating for 22 months, and have had very conservative personal minimums... gradually getting lower as pages fill in my logbook.

I was feeling pressure to complete a flight in the most efficient manner, and the weather (and forecasts) were changing drastically throughout the morning. Pretty much everything within flying distance was as bad, or at risk of getting worse.

The best thing I could have done to make this approach better would have bee to wait a couple of hours before departing...

[Rockie]

I was feeling pressure to complete a flight in the most efficient manner, and the weather (and forecasts) were changing drastically throughout the morning. Pretty much everything within flying distance was as bad, or at risk of getting worse.

The best thing I could have done to make this approach better would have bee to wait a couple of hours before departing...

Happiness is a good alternate and lots of gas to get you there.

[Black_Tusk]

If he was a professional there would be an argument for "stabilized approach", as far as I can tell he is hand bombing his own private plane.

Since when does being a private pilot in your own aircraft defer the need for a stable approach?

[Cat Driver]

Dirtdr, don't beat yourself to much about this learning episode we all have learned by making poor or questionable decisions.


Here was my first comment on this and at that time .

Well from looking at that video there is no way in hell I would not have landed from that arrival.

To go around just because you are slightly off center line means you are opening yourself to maybe not seeing anything on the next approach.

The intent of an instrument approach is to land if you can safely see the landing area....he did and he did.

And so would I have.

Not only have you learned something from this you have the self worth to share it with everyone else and that takes a lot more courage than the posters who criticise what you did while hiding behind a made up name.

I would fly with you anytime but there a few posters here I would not fly with period.

So good on you for sharing.

[Hockaloogie]

This thread in all its elements absolutely perfectly encapsulates Avcanada!

Ha ha, I was just about to say the same. I would sum it up thusly:

.: "I can see the runway. I'm going to land this airplane now, because I might not be so lucky on the next attempt, and then I'll have to go alternate."

Rockie: "I can see the runway, but it's over there to the right. I could slide over there, but rules are rules and we must never deviate from them, so I'm going around, and if I can't get in on the next attempt, well, who cares, I don't pay for the gas anyway."

Two experienced pilots, two opposite opinions, and never the twain shall meet.

[Cat Driver]

.: "I can see the runway. I'm going to land this airplane now, because I might not be so lucky on the next attempt, and then I'll have to go alternate."

What if that had been his alternate?

Would you have missed the approach when it was so simple to land from what he saw or would you have missed and ran the risk of not seeing anything when you got to limits the next time?

By the way there is a big difference between doing ILS approaches in large jets and doing ILS approaches in basic twins like the Cessna 310.

He was hand flying, generally the computers keep the approach stable in large jets.

[Hockaloogie]

., your logic is impeccable if you ask me. I don't think Rockie has spent much time in bugsmashers lately (I could be wrong) so he sees it from a large jet perspective and thinks OP should have missed. And anyway, he opposes everything you say just on principle.

[dirtdr]

I am open to constructive criticism, but I'll go on the defensive here for a little bit.

... to me is more than full scale deflection of the localizer which requires a go-around if you're still IFR.

Never did the LOC reach more than half scale deflection. When it did get close to half, I had already been visual for about 2 seconds. I am pretty sure that my eyes had a couple second jump on the iphone video on having the approach lights in sight. This is probably when I had a big exhale, dumped the rest of the flaps (I'm sure we will talk about "unstabilized") and steer towards the runway. I was full scale high on the glideslope once I dumped the flaps, it leveled out a bit more than I wanted.

I would have been on the autopilot, but for whatever reason, it did not capture the LOC when I intercepted it. I am going up today in the clear to see what I did wrong. I almost always fly RNAV approaches and the autopilot does a great job of driving to the runway, but this time I had the ILS dialed in due to the mins required, so I was hand flying.

I am also going to be practicing some no flap/ partial flap landings to see how those feel, as well as a go around.

What if that had been his alternate?

I'm sure this will get me flamed.... but it was my filed alternate...

[Rockie]

Never did the LOC reach more than half scale deflection.

Ok, I stand corrected.

[Rockie]

I don't think Rockie has spent much time in bugsmashers lately (I could be wrong) so he sees it from a large jet perspective and thinks OP should have missed.

You're not wrong. On airplanes I'm most familiar with that would be a go-around before reaching DH.

And anyway, he opposes everything you say just on principle.

Not at all, just the stuff he's wrong about.

Rockie: "I can see the runway, but it's over there to the right. I could slide over there, but rules are rules and we must never deviate from them, so I'm going around, and if I can't get in on the next attempt, well, who cares, I don't pay for the gas anyway."

Unstable approaches are the bane of the airline industry so yes, when the approach is unstable the proper thing to do is follow the rules and go-around. Bad things can happen if you don't.

[rookiepilot]

So there is room for improvement. I get it. But that has not been what has been beating me up over this approach.

What gets me is why I was there in the first place?

I am a private pilot. My own airplane. Very current (for a weekend warrior). I fly this plane close to 50 hrs/month. I have had my instrument rating for 22 months, and have had very conservative personal minimums... gradually getting lower as pages fill in my logbook.

I was feeling pressure to complete a flight in the most efficient manner, and the weather (and forecasts) were changing drastically throughout the morning. Pretty much everything within flying distance was as bad, or at risk of getting worse.

The best thing I could have done to make this approach better would have bee to wait a couple of hours before departing...

I haven't studied the video in detail as typing this on an iPhone.

Regardless of your future decisions the above I think is a very mature and thoughtful post analysis.

[justwork]

If he was a professional there would be an argument for "stabilized approach", as far as I can tell he is hand bombing his own private plane.

Since when does being a private pilot in your own aircraft defer the need for a stable approach?

C'mon. Don't be a dick. If I want to carve it in tight in my plane I will, in the companies I won't. If I want to shoot an approach a dot low in my plane I will, not in the companies. If I want to add bunch of speed to my approach because of gusty winds I will, in the company plane I add whatever I'm allowed. If I want to touch down midway on a long runway in my plane I will, not in the companies.

The airlines I've worked at all set hard limits, and I adhere to them. When I'm flying personally, for pleasure, I set whatever is applicable for the day.

[Cat Driver]

justwork, there are a lot of us who have been flying long enough to know that flying is more than following SOP's written to fit the lowest common denominator in aviation and also know that there is no black and white in aviation when it comes to what is safe.

For some SOP's are what keeps them from crashing.

For some of us we have the experience to know not only our own safe limits but the safe limits of a given airplane.

Your post sums it up perfectly.

I would like to add to my other comments.

If a pilot thinks that you should not land from an unstabalized approach we should not try and change their minds because we do not want to maybe partly responsible for them exceeding their skills level and crashing.

[Maynard]

Rockie I gotta ask, do you avoid all airports that have a crooked NdB or vOR approach? God help you if you fly into one. You will be shocked when you break out and have to manipulate the controls to land the aircraft.

[Maynard]

justwork, there are a lot of us who have been flying long enough to know that flying is more than following SOP's written to fit the lowest common denominator in aviation and also know that there is no black and white in aviation when it comes to what is safe.

For some SOP's are what keeps them from crashing.

For some of us we have the experience to know not only our own safe limits but the safe limits of a given airplane.

Your post sums it up perfectly.

Exactly. For the inside the box, oh no what now the book is empty, type folk.

[Cat Driver]

I just gotta share this with all you good people out there.

My favourite stabilised approach was back when I was flying the water bombers.

Down wind was at three hundred feet as fast as I could make the sucker go and reduced power to be at zero thrust when abeam the point where I wanted to touch down I rolled it into a sixty degree bank turn to bleed the speed back and when I was at two hundred feet and lined up with my pick up run I closed the throttles and lowered the nose slightly and waited for flare height to touch down at exactly 72 knots for the pickup.

Sometimes I made the circuit shorter and there was no final approach, just a reduction in bank angle so I did not drag a wing in the water.

So there are different kinds of stabilised approaches.

[Orvlrite]

There is some room for improvement, not the most stable approach ever...that being said if you're not hand flying approaches to mins often you get rusty fast and if you've never done one to 200ft, it's quite something. Thanks for sharing the video, lord knows in my lifetime I have landed a plane with an approach to mins that was less than perfect after a full duty day.

keep current and practice, hand flying approaches can be good fun...just don't bust mins or you'll go to hell.

[JasonE]

Congrats on your first one, and thanks for sharing!