My First ILS to minimums

[Rockie]

I hate to pour vinegar into the wine, but it looks to me in the video like the lights weren't visual until the 5 bar lights were in sight, which only begin halfway down the approach lights that are themselves only about 2600 feet long. When they were sighted a 15 degree bank turn was intiated towards them, and when the runway itself became visual the aircraft was still to the left of the left hand side of the runway. I'm not a math whizz, but that to me is more than full scale deflection of the localizor which requires a go-around if you're still IFR.

Granted, this is a video and may not be representative of what the pilot actually saw out the window, but the bank towards the lights didn't begin until they were visible in the video. It also required a 10 degree bank turn almost in ground effect to correct back to runway heading. I admit I am not proficient in those kinds of airplanes and haven't been for a long time, so it may very well be that this was a safe visual segment after an instrument approach.

However instrument limits I do understand, and this was an ILS which is supposed to be a precision approach, not a non-precision approach. When you reach minimums you are supposed to be at the correct point in space and on the correct tragectory to complete a safe landing with minimal corrections which I would argue is not the case here.

I'm not judgeing, but I would encourage the OP to polish his skills and not accept errors like this.

[Chuck Finley]

I'm not judgeing, but I would encourage the OP to polish his skills and not accept errors like this.

At least he put it on the RWY not before!

[Rockie]

I'm not judgeing, but I would encourage the OP to polish his skills and not accept errors like this.

At least he put it on the RWY not before!

So you disagree?

[Cat Driver]

I'm not judgeing, but I would just encourage the OP to polish his skills and not accept errors like this.

In defence of the poster he did say it was his " first " approach and landing at IFR limits so he has a good benchmark to start polishing his skills.

Once again I have looked at the video several more times and see nothing unsafe about the handling of the airplane and his corrections were quite smooth and effective.

Rockie do you not have spell check?

[Cat Driver]

Delete

[Rockie]

I'm not judgeing, but I would just encourage the OP to polish his skills and not accept errors like this.

In defence of the poster he did say it was his " first " approach and landing at IFR limits so he has a good benchmark to start polishing his skills.

Once again I have looked at the video several more times and see nothing unsafe about the handling of the airplane and his corrections were quite smooth and effective.

Rockie do you not have spell check?

I'm just offering advice so his second approach isn't also his last Cat, do you have anything to add to that? Also I've admitted I'm not proficient in those airplanes and it may have been safe, but not in compliance with IFR limits which are in place to ensure safety. If you wish to accept those kinds of errors in your own flying that's one thing, but it shouldn't be accepted by anybody else.

Do you really want to get into a tit for tat about spelling? I'd be happy to if you are...

[Cat Driver]

At least he put it on the RWY not before!

And it was the runway, not a taxiway.

[av8ts]

Does every thread really need to be about Air Canada. I stopped reading the SFO thread about 5 pages ago because I got sick of the same back and forth. Please don't start it here

[confusedalot]

Forgive me, it has been since 1985 that I have flown a light twin. I forgot. So, what is the ''blue line'', the single engine safe speed, on a cessna 310. Only asking since as I recall, this would be the regular approach speed.

[Chuck Finley]

Does every thread really need to be about Air Canada. I stopped reading the SFO thread about 5 pages ago because I got sick of the same back and forth. Please don't start it here

Actually you are the first one to bring up Air Canada.

[av8ts]

No actually you were

[Chuck Finley]

No actually you were

Where did I mention AC?

[Rockie]

No actually you were

Where did I mention AC?

Don't be obtuse.

At least he put it on the RWY not before!

The last thing I want is for this to turn into anything but a discussion about the original subject. There seems to be an acceptance of this approach as normal, when in my opinion it is not. There was a significant correction required on a precision approach to make the runway. That's not supposed to be required on a precision approach. My purpose for interjecting is so neither the OP or anybody else would think this was a normal approach transition to a landing...it wasn't. More accuracy is demanded in instrument flying.

It has nothing to do with AC so please let's leave that out of it.

[Chuck Finley]

Speculation at best.

[BTD]

I'd like to buy an argument please.

How many of you have flown from the marker to DH by hand?

Many times. Just like lots of other posters here.

[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...