Glideslope and visual approaches

goldentrout

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
116
Total Time
3000
What does FAR 121 say (if anything) about maintaining at or above the ILS glideslope during a visual approach? My IOE Captain seemed very concerned about going below the glideslope during the final 200' of the approach. My technique is to use the glideslope as a guide until around 500', and then I aim at the numbers for the rest of the approach. My reason for this is I see no reason to waste 1000-1200' feet of runway by following the glidesope all the way down, especially on a short and/or wet/icy runway where a little extra pavement might just make all the difference.

I'm only talking about visual approaches...certainly when doing an actual instrument approach, "ducking under" the glideslope is procedurely incorrect.

Thank you
 

bigsky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
375
Total Time
11500
I dont have any references available at this moment- but the Fars somewhere say that if in a TURBINE aircraft and you have a vasi or an electronic glideslope available you must be on or above it from om to MM.
Also as the ac gets larger, ie.. wide body, the normal 2 bar vasi or glideslope may not even provide enough clearance over threshold. For example dc-10 requires a minimum threshold crossing height of 48 feet to ensure clearance..so as a rule ducking below gs is not recommended
I DO APPRECIATE your concern about wasting runway, however as a flight instuctor I once gave remedial training required by FAA to one of my clients.He had a mu-2 turboprop that had a landing gear collapse( no fault of his). However Faa made quite an issue about his landing on the numbers(his normal practice) vs remaining on the gs and landing in touchdown zone. because of that practice they gave him quite abit of harassment- he argued with them over it and eventually talked himself into a freecheck-ride with FAA--whatever you call those(768, 669 or whatever
 

goldentrout

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
116
Total Time
3000
I guess maybe the right answer is somewhere in-between. A pilot probably ought to maintain the VASI/glideslope unless, in his judgment, he's got a good reason not too...i.e. a situation where landing distance is critical...heavyweight on a short runway, poor braking action, etc.

Probably not a good practice to consistently duck below the glideslope in normal conditions with plenty of runway available, which is typically the case in the Dornier 328 that I fly.
 

chperplt

Registered User
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,123
Total Time
.
Your IOE instructor was right to jump on you for it.. 121 flying requires you to follow the glideslope or a visual reference if available all the way down. Do those things when you're on the line.. :)

I can't imagine you're going to be taking your 328 into many tight spaces that would justify hitting the numbers.
 

goldentrout

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
116
Total Time
3000
Do you have a FAR reference? Everyone tells me "the FAR says," but I am unable to find it.

I agree there aren't many times when I need to aim (not hit, mind you...touchdown is typically 500-1000' beyond the aimpoint) the numbers, but there are times when it seems prudent...

1. Going into PHL on their N/S runway. It's only 5459'...and sometimes you need to fly faster than normal approach speed...since you have to time yourself to miss traffic landing east to west in front of you. If this runway was water logged or icy, I'd want every inch I could get.

2. Many airports have a long main runway, and a 5000-6000' shorter runway. If there's a 40 knot crosswind on the main runway, and the shorter runway is more aligned with the wind, I'm taking the shorter runway. Again, I see no reason to deliberately give-up 1000-1200' feet of runway on a 5000' runway...especially if I'm flying icing approach speeds (typically 10-15 knots faster than normal approach speeds).

I agree...in general I guess I should be at or above the VASI/glideslope on a visual approach, but I still think there are situations where judgment would dicatate a little shorter approach. Aiming at the numbers gets me on the ground safely 1000-1500' down the runway, instead of 2000-2500' by following the glideslope all the way down.
 

Andy Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,293
Total Time
6200
91.129e2: " 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 cloud criteria requires interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
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 path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing."

These paragraphs apply to Operations in Class D Airspace.
 

flydog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
542
Total Time
2500+
The reference to Part 91 maintaing glideslpope to MM is correct. The same section also requires maintaining the VASI until safe landing is assured

Another thing to keep in mind is that an IAP is a clearance which must be adhered to. There technically is no such thing as "going visual" during an ILS. The glide slope must be followed to decision height regardless of weather conditions. After that if you want to yank the power back and dive at the numbers you may be using poor judgement but as far as the FARs go you may not be in jeopardy of being violated.

Just remember that 2 dots at the MM is about 35' low and the TCH in most cases is about 50'. All it takes is a little wind shear to put you in the approach lights

If you review your landing distance data you may find that it takes into account a 50' TCH and touchdown at the 1000' TDZ. Since you legally cant land unless you meet this factored landing distance when flying 121/135 then there should be no need to go below glide slope.
 

flydog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
542
Total Time
2500+
By the way just to add to Andy Neill's post.

The other paragraphs of Part 91 dealing with B,C, and E airspace also mention that all the requirments of Class D airspace apply to those classes of airspace to include maintaining the glideslope and VASI. The only airspace this is not required is in Class G
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
Goldentrout,

Under FAR 121 and 135, you are required to touchdown in the first third of the runway (touchdown zone). (14 CFR 91.175(c)(1)). It's tempting to look at the total useable landing distance, or runway length, when considering this requirment. It's tempting to determine if you can stop in the total landing distance, period.

However, if you look on the back of your runway diagram on your Jepp charts, under Additional Runway Information, you'll find the useable runway lengths after the threshold, and after flying the glideslop to touchdown. It is the useable distance after flying the runway to touchdown on the glideslope, that should concern you when flight planning to a given runway. If you believe that this distance is insufficient, then you should not use the runway, regardless of the total length.

Under TERPS, the obstacle clearance plane and distances are calculated for the actual glide slope to the DH. (now DA). Normally this is 200', except for Cat II and Cat III runways. The ILS is flight checked to this altititude. However, below that altitude, the obstacle clearance is only calculated, and the clearance and glide slope is NOT flight checked. Your only assurance of obstacle protection is to maintain the same glideslop angle protected on approach with the glide slope, OR, a visual approach slope indicator. (The VASI/PLASI, etc, will provide obstacle clearance, but may occur at a slightly different angle).

Aside from the other implications, there are legal considerations. To "duck under," you are operating outside the FAR, and you open yourself to liability if anything at all should happen (including enforcement action, for whatever reason). A possible scenario you may not have considered is damage to a trailing aircraft by wake turbulence. If that aircraft was damaged, regardless of what actually happened, you may find yourself on the losing end of a court case because you weren't where you were supposed to be. If that sounds far fetched, it's not. Your reasoning and the specifics may not be all that important.

Ask any carrier pilot about "spotting the deck," and see who thinks it's wise. Landing on such a critically short piece of real estate, the pilot is forced to fly a visual (and electronic) guidance all the way to touchdown. Even a few feet long or short can result in a bolter (missed approach), or a nasty sudden stop at the edge of the deck. Such a landing is a standard approach, in microcosm, with bigger penalties.

Finally, note that FAR 91.3 requires you to become familiar with the runway lengths before departure, as part of your preflight planning information. This information includes the useable runway lengths when landing beyond the glide slope. If this distance is insufficient, the runway is not acceptable for use. Factors such as a contaminated runway, aircraft weight, and density altitude at the destination will affect the ability to get stopped in this distance. You can always select another runway.

If dispatchers don't understand this, educate them.
 

profile

Shem Malmquist
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
279
Total Time
12,000
In addition to the requirement to maintain the g/s to the MM, you should also remember that if you start deviating from it after that point you are no longer flying a stabilized approach. The G/S is taking you to the point you need to be aiming at. Save the "land on the numbers" stuff for the little airplanes and bush pilots.
 

goldentrout

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
116
Total Time
3000
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
202
Total Time
enough
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

Shem Malmquist
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
279
Total Time
12,000
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

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
19
Total Time
%
"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

Better lucky than good!
Joined
Dec 9, 2001
Posts
223
Total Time
10000+
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
202
Total Time
enough
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2002
Posts
283
Total Time
!@#$%
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
542
Total Time
2500+
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

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Posts
19
Total Time
<1000
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Posts
687
Total Time
7000
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
 
Top