ALTITUDE ON FINAL APPROACH

[vamac53]

is there a rule of thumb bout how high to come in to pick up g/s ? is 1,600 ft above airport elevation ok ?

mike

[APUtech]

Mike, it depends on the destination airport's elevation. A general guide that many simmers go by is 3000'-3300' Above Ground Level within 10-20 nm--terrain allowing--of the destination airport. There are several airports that are close to Sea Level that actually have appproaches as low as 1700'--1900' AGL, but in *general* the 3000'-3300' method works.

This is by no means an actual FAA-approved method, but again, it works well in many situations. Your *best* bet is to look up the Approach Charts (or "Plates") for the airports that you intend to fly into (I'm assuming that you're flying commercial jets). They will show the recommended altitudes for final approaches. Those charts may be a bit confusing at first, but there are videos on YouTube and .pdf files that explain approach charts/plates very thoroughly, and you'll be proficient at reading them in no time. :-D

If you're flying GA prop-jobs you can aim to be at Traffic Pattern Altitude (TPA) 1000' above the destination airport's field elevation--at least 3 nm out. Many smaller airports prefer GA pilots to enter the traffic pattern before landing, versus a straight-in approach. This procedure is very common at uncontrolled airports. You enter the traffic pattern at a 45 degree angle on the downwind leg, at the specified Traffic Pattern Altitude (TPA). You decrease speed here, lowering your first notch of flaps before turning to the Base leg, and then Final approach.

I hope some of this is helpful to you, Mike!

Happy Flying!

APUtech

[MightyCaco]

Yeah like APU said, 3000' is generally a good rule. Some airports are higher depending on terrain, and some are lower.

One important rule of thumb that you may want to consider learning is that on a 3 degree glide path (which most airports are), every 3 miles from the threshold is approximately a thousand feet.

What this means is that if you are at three miles (nautical), and at approximately 1000', you should be either on glide slope or pretty close to it. At six miles, 2000'. At nine miles, 3000'.

As an example, If you have a 1600' ASL (above sea level) airport, you should be able to pick up the glide slope at 9 miles from the threshold, at 4600' ASL, assuming it is a 3 degree glide slope.

[Licopolis]

In Russia and former Soviet countries GA pilots typically use 300 - 400 m pattern (1000 feet), airliners use 600m patterns (2000 feet) at plains, 1200m patterns (4000 feet) in the mountains.

[Nightmare1964]

If your engine/s quit on final, would you still make the runway? What do you think of that for a rule of thumb?

[SteveFSX/P3D]

Originally posted by Nightmare:

If your engine/s quit on final, would you still make the runway? What do you think of that for a rule of thumb?

That will make an interesting experiment.

Should an airliner make the runway from a set distance on the ILS? ..... I have never used the largest airliners so just imagine them dropping far quicker in that situation rather than gliding.

[Nightmare1964]

All aircraft have glide capability, so why not factor this into all landing proceedures as a safety backup. If you need power on final, I say your approach is too shallow. Easier to steepen if you're overshooting by more flap and/or if your aircraft is capable, side slipping.

The ILS puts you on the GLIDE slope. No power should be required if your aircraft is configured correctly. But I do understand that different aircraft have different glide characteristics, so many aircraft would require power when utilizing ILS. It is a Instrument Landing System, designed to help pilots land their aircraft outside of VMC, so in the case where the pilot has good visibility to the airport, as a pilot, I'd be opting for the higher glide approach, with the greater safety benefits.

[SteveFSX/P3D]

Originally posted by Nightmare:

All aircraft have glide capability, so why not factor this into all landing proceedures as a safety backup. If you need power on final, I say your approach is too shallow. Easier to steepen if you're overshooting by more flap and is your aircraft is capable, side slipping, by having a high approach.

The ILS puts you on the GLIDE slope. No power should be required if your aircraft is configured correctly. But I do understand that different aircraft have different glide characteristics, so many aircraft would require power when utilizing ILS. It is a Instrument Landing System, designed to help pilots land their aircraft outside of VMC, so in the case where the pilot has good visibility to the airport, as a pilot, I'd be opting for the higher glide approach, with the greater safety benefits.

It's amazing that despite me knowing about Glideslope and flying it, that only now with you putting 'glide' in capitals that I realise that part of the name has significance. I think they call that hidden in plain site :-)

[Nightmare1964]

Originally posted by BaerSLK:

The recommendation by Simmers will not find much poularity by real pilots at those airports:

The good simmers would echo the same recomendations as the real pilots

[Nightmare1964]

Originally posted by Steve Mak:

It's amazing that despite me knowing about Glideslope and flying it, that only now with you putting 'glide' in capitals that I realise that part of the name has significance. I think they call that hidden in plain site :-)

Becoming a pilot in real life has opened my eyes to a lot of things in aviation. Not only do you get taught how to do things but why, and all the theory behind it. It makes you a better decision maker, and better helps you be the PIC, the Pilot in Command

[Nightmare1964]

Originally posted by BaerSLK:

Originally posted by Nightmare:

The good simmers would echo the same recomendations as the real pilots

I dont know any simmers neither bad or good, so I guess you are right if you know many of them.

I'm guessing the bad real pilots are not with us anymore. The pilot training usually takes the bad habits out, and instills good ones in before they give us our pilot's licenses and certificates.

There's an interesting saying in aviation: "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots"

[❤Poromeni_Giagia❤]

Originally posted by mmccarthy53:

is there a rule of thumb bout how high to come in to pick up g/s ? is 1,600 ft above airport elevation ok ?

mike

[APUtech]

Originally posted by Nightmare:

If your engine/s quit on final, would you still make the runway? What do you think of that for a rule of thumb?

Nightmare, my answer to your question is: It depends on your altitude, distance from the destination airport's runway on final (approach), FAF, airspeed at the time of the engine(s)-out condition, and aircraft type. It also depends on whether you're talking real-world flying, simming, or both.

If I'm on final apph in a Piper Cherokee PA-28-161 and my engine quits on final, I have a good chance of making the runway--if my Cherokee is already properly configured for approach and landing--Cherokees have a prettty good power-off glide ratio, (and I practiced engine-out landings during my Private Pilot flight training). At 5500' 7.0 nm East from my home GA airport I pulled my throttle to idle, set the Cherokee's trim to best glide, about 79 kts, and successfully landed on runway 27L at my home airport, deploying flaps *only* when I knew that reaching the runway was assured. My CFI was with me during those times.

On the other hand if I'm sim-flying large commercial airliners like the Boeing 767, 777 or 747 my chances of making it to the destination's airport runway aren't so good--jetliners have terrible power-off glide ratios, and while flying online with ATC on my VA, I'd run out of fuel (because I didn't calculate and allow for strong headwinds at cruise altitude) less than 2nm from the intended runway, and ended up doing an off-airport landing.

Of course, that hasn't happened in a very long time, because I'd learned to more precisely calculate my airplanes' fuel burn, and in additon to an extra hour of fuel onboard I add additional fuel to compensate for any pending headwinds aloft.

So, basically the short answer to your question is...it depends. ;-)

Happy flying, and that was an excellent question, Nightmare!

APUtech

[APUtech]

Originally posted by Nightmare:

Originally posted by BaerSLK:

The recommendation by Simmers will not find much poularity by real pilots at those airports:

The good simmers would echo the same recomendations as the real pilots

Thankfully, I happen to be both. ;-)

[Nightmare1964]

Originally posted by APUtech:

Originally posted by Nightmare:

The good simmers would echo the same recomendations as the real pilots

Thankfully, I happen to be both. ;-)

Same :)

[MightyCaco]

Originally posted by Nightmare:

All aircraft have glide capability, so why not factor this into all landing proceedures as a safety backup. If you need power on final, I say your approach is too shallow. Easier to steepen if you're overshooting by more flap and/or if your aircraft is capable, side slipping.

The ILS puts you on the GLIDE slope. No power should be required if your aircraft is configured correctly. But I do understand that different aircraft have different glide characteristics, so many aircraft would require power when utilizing ILS. It is a Instrument Landing System, designed to help pilots land their aircraft outside of VMC, so in the case where the pilot has good visibility to the airport, as a pilot, I'd be opting for the higher glide approach, with the greater safety benefits.

This may be a good thing to think about if you are flying a single-engine piston aircraft in VMC.

However, if you are flying a tubeliner with 2+ engines (which I suspect Mike is), most airlines have a stabilized approach criterion where you need to be on path and on slope (also on-speed and configured) by a certain altitude (1000' usually), VMC or not. Otherwise a mandatory go-around is required

The obvious reason for this is so that the aircraft isn't dancing around the profile low to the ground (1 degree of attitude change equates to 400-700 fpm change in a lot of larger jets). Furthermore, jets take up more runway, which thus require precision whether you are visual or not so you don't inadvertantly eat up more than what you gambled for. It may be more unsafe to approach high even though you see the runway in front of you.

The chances of tubes having a dual engine flameout is quite extremely rare, and they do have sufficient thrust to either maintain glide slope, or conduct a single engine go-around in case you lose one engine. Therefore, I'd recommend staying on slope instead of going high (being one dot of glideslope, and on PAPIs).

Of course, this is a sim, so by no means am I to impose this on anyone. It's just food for thought. If you are flying a 172 or any light single, this is pretty trivial.