Airborne_Again wrote:
The approach chart doesn’t have any restriction on the track inbound BEPOX so the procedure should work no matter from what direction you’re approaching. When you activated the approach, the navigator should have given you a fly-by turn at BEPOX inbound SC05I. You should make that turn and not make a procedure turn on the outside of BEPOX – at least not without ATC approval. The distance between the BEPOX (the IAF) and SC05I (IF) should be enough for you to have a sufficiently long straight track before SC05I.
Do you know of any examples that do have restrictions in the UK or Europe? I’ll need to look back on the video, but not sure the camera picks the GPS in detail very well so wouldn’t be able to see. It’s a GNS430 if that helps. So after CAM you could just direct BEPOX and it’ll give you a fly by turn? I was under the impression that you have to fly the majority of the route from BEPOX to SCO5I.
I remember the examiner on my RNAV into Lydd telling me about Fly over and Fly by’s. Not that I didn’t listen, but more so it was quite interesting to understand the interpretation of the charts.
TimR wrote:
If the airport is “non-radar” and the approach is procedural then you are often asked to fly via CAM when arriving E/SE. That puts you in a difficult position for a “report BEPOX” especially when flying along at 160kts as your GPS will make you turn significantly ahead of BEPOX.A lot of my training was done flying EGSC approaches and both my FI and examiner wanted the procedure turn. Totally agree you need to coordinate that with ATC though. Apparently this is a known shortcoming of this specific approach and it’s more along the lines of “I will execute a procedure turn at BEPOX, will report turn complete” vs. “requesting a procedure turn at BEPOX”.
Where would Cambridge Radar likely take you? Presumably the south side of the aerodrome, as the north has quite a few gliding sites it appears. (Which incidentally were active during my arrival). I will likely fly into Cambridge again soon, hopefully if it’s Runway 05 – I can try the procedural turn.
I guess it’s designed for jet arrivals coming in from controlled airspace from the west more than arrivals from the E/SE. I guess the way I flew it, wasn’t necessary wrong, but more put’s me out of position?
Graham wrote:
Hi Robbie,Having watched your last two videos (Southend and Cambridge) one thing that I think would make your life easier is to fly the approaches at a higher speed.
In the TB10 I fly an ILS with nil flap at 100-105 knots, and you could probably go a bit higher in the DA40 because you have a higher flap-limiting speed I believe. The thing that keeps me from flying it faster is that I need to get it below 95 knots after becoming visual to get some flap out.
The aeroplane is happier at a higher speed, it wallows less, responds better to your control inputs and is easier to keep on a constant trajectory. Not only that, you get down the approach more quickly so it is less time that you have to keep the needles centered. It also makes life easier for ATC if you are mixing it with faster traffic.
Whatever decision altitude you set for yourself, you will still have time after becoming visual to reduce power, let the speed bleed off into the white arc and deploy flap to slow you down to threshold speed. This is another reason to stay with the glideslope after becoming visual and not drop below it to aim at the numbers.
During my IMCr I was taught to fly the ILS with the first stage of flap at the same approach speed as used in the visual circuit. I cannot think of a single good reason to do that – it just makes your life much harder.
Hi Graham,
Some good points you raise as I never did my IMCR on the DA40. So when I first flew it, I probably flew it incorrectly. I used to fly the IAPs very fast and was so unstable. I was taught correctly in the DA40 recently, that before approaching FAF you’d reduced to 50% power. (Below 108knots) enabling a stage of flaps. You would use that for all level flight sections of the approach. The descending part towards the runway would be 20% power – 90KIAS – Giving you a VS -500fpm. Reducing to 70 knots on final, selecting landing flaps.
One thing I am struggling to get to grasps with is, flying that final third, selecting landing flaps and not letting the aircraft descend below the glidepath as you’ve mentioned. I think as many have noticed, I am still too fast on the flare for landing. Occasionally getting a bounce. The DA40 is extremely slipper, but I would agree I was probably reducing to 50% a lot sooner than I should have. Because on the case of when I did the RNAV for renewal of my IMCR, is that I had a great stonking tailwind before turning on the final approach track. I guess reducing to 90knots as per the training should also take into account GS and not just IAS?
Two things:
1. You have to remember that there’s no ‘book speed’ for the ILS. For visual approaches there is Vref, but for an instrument approach it’s up to you. Anything an instructor or training organisation tells you is because they think that’s a good speed (or they got it from elsewhere), it is not in any way ‘official’ or ‘correct’. I prefer a faster speed, closer to cruise speed. Your mileage may vary ;-)
2. A bounce is not directly caused by being too fast. It is caused by too high a rate of descent in the last few feet above the runway. This is often the result of a prolonged hold-off (due to being too fast!) which gradually climbs away from the tarmac and then drops on suddenly from higher than you’d like.
The only limiting speeds to fly approaches or circles to land is around VLE/VGE as you quickly configure for landing other than that the fastest/cleanest is even better
If I can’t slow down after becoming visual or stop after landing in GA aircraft at cruise speed it is probably not the right combination of weather/wind/airport for IMC with or without instruments…
Circling approaches the minima changes based on speed category.
Graham wrote:
1. You have to remember that there’s no ‘book speed’ for the ILS. For visual approaches there is Vref, but for an instrument approach it’s up to you.
Actually there is. With an approach category A aircraft you’re not supposed to fly faster than 110 KIAS on final. On the other hand no one seems to care about that.
RobertL18C wrote:
Circling approaches the minima changes based on speed category
True, but aircraft categories are based on threshold speed (V_AT is roughly 1.3*VS0) rather than your actual flying speed during the approach segments?
For CAT A, you can start your approach at max 150kts and finish it (or go missed) at max 110kts but are you supposed to fly threshold at V_AT<90kts or no one does/care?
A “circling to land minima” of 500ft agl and visibility > 2km should fit all aircraft/speed categories I am touching 
Airborne_Again wrote:
Actually there is. With an approach category A aircraft you’re not supposed to fly faster than 110 KIAS on final. On the other hand no one seems to care about that.
Yes but that’s approach categories, i.e. a procedural restriction. Not an aircraft speed that you’d find in the POH.
If faster on a circling approach the minima goes up
The main reason ATOs teach a reference instrument approach speed (both 3D and CDFA) is partly, attitude plus power equals (consistent) performance, and because there is +/- 5 knots tolerance under the examiner guide for the IR. Higher speed, and tailwind ILS will normally be covered as well.
Airline OPC will be configured fully at FAF and will have similar requirements for strict speed monitoring. In practice, when on a coupled approach they would re configure at 4D, with the autopilot taking the strain.
GA in hub airports will typically keep their speed up until 4D, in effect flying clean until 4D – but again the equipment will be on a coupled approach and the types have a high Vle.
What instrument approach speed would you recommend then for a TB10 or DA40 (which are probably pretty similar)?
Up until now I’ve gone with the theory that (within reason) faster is easier and also keeps you out of other people’s way. I am quite conscious of the ‘FIFO’ mentioned by Timothy in another thread.
Always willing to learn.
