Excellent video. One important thing you didn't mention. On the LOC approach, if you see the runway before the VDP, you still don't descend until the VDP. Otherwise you might get low too early and hit something you don't see (at night) like trees.
Your IFR series is excellent. More than once I've googled a question about instrument flying and the top result is one of your videos with almost my exact question as a title. Thank you for making these.
This is an excellent topic and one which was asked of me during one of my airline interviews recently! Thank you for going over it in detail as using proper terminology during the interview is quite important!
IFR pilot here and took many courses but this is the simplest explanation between the non- Precision and Precision missed approach points. I’m glad I’ve subscribed to this channel.
thank you so much for this inforamtion! I study in Russia, major pilot - engineer and i wish we could have such information in our native language. But there is a big lack of normal and clear information, especially about IFR flights, so that's why i'm here. Keep going, wish you good luck and continue giving us information in such a clear language and good animation
пожалуйста, you're most welcome! If I find any good Russian language training sources I'll look into them, I know there are a lot of people doing sim tutorials in many languages. I'd do it by Russian is очень плохо
Some charts show elapsed times for the nonprecision final approach segment. In this case, with an MDH of 482 feet, subtract 48 seconds from that DR time. This technique is based on a groundspeed of 113 knots. To be more accurate, multiply the 48 seconds by 113 kts/planned GS. So for a planned groundspeed of 130 kts, the amount to subtract would be (48 sec)(113/130) = 42 seconds. These calculations are for a 3° slope to the threshold. The slope to a point 1000 feet beyond the threshold will be reached about 5 seconds later. DR time to VDP = {[DR time - (MDH/10)](113 KGS/planned GS)} + 5 sec.
Interesting is that for many companies, the VDP is the mandatory decision point, but in some cases (like you mentioned) you can not execute the missed until it is safe to do so; excellent, thanks for sharing.
I've seen a lot of approaches that have an alternate missed approach fix. Could you do a video explaining those, including when they would be used and how to execute that missed approach when there are no instructions spelled out? Thanks.
For example, the ILS/LOC RWY 9 at Redwing (RGK) requires an ADF because that’s the published missed approach procedure. But it also has a GPS waypoint as an alternate holding fix. Would I be allowed to shoot that approach using the GPS waypoint hold instead?
It is much easier once you fly with non-government issued charts. Those usually depict the MAP for non precision approaches very clearly indeed (my last few companies use and used LIDO charts, not Jeppesen). That said, over here in europe we have to fly non precision approaches in CDFA technique (continuous descend final approach) and use a decision altitude rather than an MDA. Which means, if we do not have the required visual contact at minimums we do start out missed approach climb straight away, however, the lateral trajectory only starts at the missed approach point, and of course any maximum altitudes during the missed approach (nearly every missed does have at least one if not several of those over here) has to be respected. That said, our charts do not depict a visual descent point as that is not required nor useful anymore while using a CDFA technique. And, like most airlines, we do not use the precise minimum, but rather rounded up to the next 10 feet, our charts are tailored to that standard anyway and it just makes life easier.
Nice video! I've been reviewing for my CFII and this has helped a lot. Could you post a link as to where you found the navigation database review? I've tried looking for it with no luck. Thanks!
Sure! It's the Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway or IFP, which you can just google or go to the site at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/
It's like you read my mind! I was wondering this week how to handle a LOC with no DME from the station and no GPS. I assumed it was based on the timer, glad I got my confirmation! Now I just have to ID the FAF with only one VOR. Plan on finding and flying the right correction angle early, switching VOR stations to find the intersection, then switching back to the LOC frequency as I start the timer and decent. It's complicated, but it's what I have. Does that sound right?
That's a tricky one. Sounds like you're saying you're going to be off the LOC guidance just as you're crossing the FAF, which is not a great idea as you need to be on the course guidance inside the FAF. Approaches that use cross radials to identify a FAF don't require Dual VORs, but they do require them to identify step down fixes after the FAF since you're not supposed to switch off the approach guidance. Also, not all FAFs are identifiable using cross radials. You can usually avail yourself of radar vectors from ATC as long as coverage in the area is good. This way you could leave your lone VOR on just the LOC frequency. I'm sure you've heard this, but if you're planning on doing hard IMC with any regularity you might want to look into a panel upgrade. All of this IFR stuff with minimum equipment is fun in theory, but in reality will limit your options to a large extent, and in IFR having plan Bs and Cs etc is a must.
@@flightinsight9111 Thanks. Upgrading the panel is out of my control because I rent. But I have started looking at other rental options or even possibly ownership.
…now that I look again at the approach I was thinking of, it requires being able to receive the LOC and separate DME, so I wouldn’t be able to do it single VOR anyway.
You can execute a missed approach at any time. The only problem is that you interpret the MA procedure correctly. In case of Jeppesen they will advise you if it is safe to turn before the MAP. In his second example with the turn. You can do a MA before the MAP but you can not turn until you pass the MAP. In the second example with the altitude restriction you can climb to you final MA altitude but can not turn until you passed the altitude restriction. It would be not safe to continue descending on an approach that is not stable.
When there is the inbound time box printed, the faf to map distance is also printed there. But with no timing defined, it is missing. It still doesnt necessarily answer “where is the map”?
Great explanation....thanks a lot. one question concerning the values in the parenthesis...I mean (300-3/4). earlier you mentioned a bit, this is only used in the military? How should I apply this values in my flight? reference only?
@@widestella5081: Or if landing at a military field. When I flew on a civilian contract into military bases the ceiling minimum applied. But at joint-use airports like Yuma, I don't think it applies.
Would love a video on flying in and out of a class Charlie airport. i got my PPL in G airport and am super nervous on comms and it can be very confusing
Wrt to the example of the LOC RWY 23 at KFDK, if the MAP is ultimately defined in terms of time from the FAF, which you said correlates (inversely) with ground speed rather than air speed, how can you determine this precisely using only the minimum required equipment (i.e. without GPS to give you ground speed)?
HI, you just have to make a guesstimate based on some reported wind such as SFC wind from ATC or METAR. I personally do this even for VFR approaches to get an idea of crosswind. Same deal with preparing for my first lap of the hold. There are some legacy alternatives to GPS that will provide GS directly though, for instance a 'Groundspeed and Drift Indicator', or RNAV with other than GPS although obviously those things are rare in the GA fleet. The method I use from first principles is to get the reported wind and then approximate the components using 'RAF clock code'. Although it does not lend itself to an easy textual description, once learned it is pretty user friendly and provides a useful approximation. Other methods are available.
I will argue that a 3 degree glide slope is not the only “stable” approach. I have made stable approaches often as much steeper descent rates in Cessna 150 through 182s as we always made power off gliding approaches where I learned to fly. There is nothing inherently unstable about a steeper approach in the appropriate airplane with appropriate pilot skill. I can make stable approaches well inside the VDP.
In my view you are mixing terminologies. A stable approach is usually defined as an approach that has a stable approach trajectory (laterally and vertically) from the beginning of the final approach to either touch down or missed approach. Which would be fulfilled with a power off approach, but not with a power off approach within a VDP which, presumably, has a different section of approach in front of it leading to that VDP. It is of course blatantly obvious that 3° is only the standard approach slope, there are others of course and those can be flown stabilized as well. The 5.5 degrees ILS into London City has created its own class of aircraft, and many military approaches are at a lower angle than 3 degrees, down to 2.5 degrees.
@@Soordhin I simply disagree with the FAAs definition of a stable approach. No approach is stable in the true meaning of the word as the altitude is continuously varying.
@@LTVoyager Well, of course it is obvious that in any approach the altitude changes. But it should do so in a uniform manner, like for example in a stabilized approach in the conventional sense. Which, by the way, has been established in blood, as is very much usual in aviation. Dive and drive approaches are inherently unsafe compared to CDFA ones and the statistics are extremely clear on that point. Which is why the main user of IFR approaches, the airlines, do use them pretty much exclusively.
@@Soordhin The airlines don’t fly 172s and 182s. I routinely and safely made approaches in my 182 that would not be safe in a 737. This is the problem with the FAA’s definition: it is not suitable for all airplanes. Except at large airports when requested by ATC, I always have flown power-off 180 approaches as that is how I learned in 1977 and it works well. This would not be the best way to land a 737, but it is fantastic in a 182 and keeps the pattern tight, saves time and once I pull back power on the downwind leg, there is no concern about an engine failure between there and touchdown. Any pilot that can’t handle power and rate of descent changes on an instrument approach is probably also not competent to make a safe go-around should the need arise as a go-around is a much more intensive maneuver than is a simple power and rate of descent change on final.
At 2:20 you stated that the defined MAP for the Loc4 is the I-FGH 1 DME. But at 5:30 you say that there is no defined MAP on the very same approach. Respectfully, your vids on this issue (non-precision MAPs) are inconsistent and often incorrect.
The comparison of the two views later in the video is between a defined point where the bold line meets the dashed missed proc on one approach, versus the other (the Loc 4), where that point is not defined. The point is to show why the approaches are depicted differently. That doesn't conflict with saying there is a defined MAP for each approach.
....so at 2:20 if you go back a bit he states "there is no defined point this occurs" and then after 2:20 says "[but] there is still a missed approach point indicated". And to my mind that is consistent with what is being said at 5:30, as in, the point where the solid line changes to the dashed line is not defined on the first plate but it is on the second plate because it coincides with an explicit fix.
Excellent video. One important thing you didn't mention. On the LOC approach, if you see the runway before the VDP, you still don't descend until the VDP. Otherwise you might get low too early and hit something you don't see (at night) like trees.
Fantastic video packing in lots of fundamental yet technical stuff. Well done!
Thank you for making videos. Your videos are by far the best on youtube imo
Your IFR series is excellent. More than once I've googled a question about instrument flying and the top result is one of your videos with almost my exact question as a title. Thank you for making these.
Ima always watching this stuff to stay refreshed for IFR
This is an excellent topic and one which was asked of me during one of my airline interviews recently! Thank you for going over it in detail as using proper terminology during the interview is quite important!
IFR pilot here and took many courses but this is the simplest explanation between the non- Precision and Precision missed approach points. I’m glad I’ve subscribed to this channel.
thank you so much for this inforamtion! I study in Russia, major pilot - engineer and i wish we could have such information in our native language. But there is a big lack of normal and clear information, especially about IFR flights, so that's why i'm here. Keep going, wish you good luck and continue giving us information in such a clear language and good animation
пожалуйста, you're most welcome! If I find any good Russian language training sources I'll look into them, I know there are a lot of people doing sim tutorials in many languages. I'd do it by Russian is очень плохо
@@flightinsight9111 Спасибо!!!
Some charts show elapsed times for the nonprecision final approach segment. In this case, with an MDH of 482 feet, subtract 48 seconds from that DR time. This technique is based on a groundspeed of 113 knots. To be more accurate, multiply the 48 seconds by 113 kts/planned GS.
So for a planned groundspeed of 130 kts, the amount to subtract would be (48 sec)(113/130) = 42 seconds.
These calculations are for a 3° slope to the threshold. The slope to a point 1000 feet beyond the threshold will be reached about 5 seconds later.
DR time to VDP = {[DR time - (MDH/10)](113 KGS/planned GS)} + 5 sec.
Got my IPC done today after a multi-year lapse. These videos helped tremendously getting my knowledge back to where it needs to be. Thank you!
So glad to hear it! This is great feedback. Go enjoy some clouds!
Never occurred to me to think of this as an issue. Excellent video as usual.
How is this guy making months of corses easy and simple in 1 video.
Details and explanation are more than perfect as always 👌 thank you so much
Interesting is that for many companies, the VDP is the mandatory decision point, but in some cases (like you mentioned) you can not execute the missed until it is safe to do so; excellent, thanks for sharing.
Hi!! Love the video, my question is how can you find de amendments for the approaches ?
Great video and thorough explanations, keep up the good work!
Excellent video. Thanks.
Excellent content and concise explanation! I geek out over these TERPS and such. Lol
Another great topic that you covered so clearly.
I’m glad to learn more about this and this is great ground school
I've seen a lot of approaches that have an alternate missed approach fix. Could you do a video explaining those, including when they would be used and how to execute that missed approach when there are no instructions spelled out? Thanks.
For example, the ILS/LOC RWY 9 at Redwing (RGK) requires an ADF because that’s the published missed approach procedure. But it also has a GPS waypoint as an alternate holding fix. Would I be allowed to shoot that approach using the GPS waypoint hold instead?
@@thebadgerpilot you request with ATC that you're going to do the alternate missed
Another great explanation
Excellent as always, however, could you address the (lack of) volume? I can barely hear without turning the speakers all the way up.
It is much easier once you fly with non-government issued charts. Those usually depict the MAP for non precision approaches very clearly indeed (my last few companies use and used LIDO charts, not Jeppesen). That said, over here in europe we have to fly non precision approaches in CDFA technique (continuous descend final approach) and use a decision altitude rather than an MDA. Which means, if we do not have the required visual contact at minimums we do start out missed approach climb straight away, however, the lateral trajectory only starts at the missed approach point, and of course any maximum altitudes during the missed approach (nearly every missed does have at least one if not several of those over here) has to be respected.
That said, our charts do not depict a visual descent point as that is not required nor useful anymore while using a CDFA technique. And, like most airlines, we do not use the precise minimum, but rather rounded up to the next 10 feet, our charts are tailored to that standard anyway and it just makes life easier.
Excelent video
Nice video! I've been reviewing for my CFII and this has helped a lot. Could you post a link as to where you found the navigation database review? I've tried looking for it with no luck. Thanks!
Sure! It's the Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway or IFP, which you can just google or go to the site at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/
It's like you read my mind! I was wondering this week how to handle a LOC with no DME from the station and no GPS. I assumed it was based on the timer, glad I got my confirmation! Now I just have to ID the FAF with only one VOR. Plan on finding and flying the right correction angle early, switching VOR stations to find the intersection, then switching back to the LOC frequency as I start the timer and decent. It's complicated, but it's what I have. Does that sound right?
That's a tricky one. Sounds like you're saying you're going to be off the LOC guidance just as you're crossing the FAF, which is not a great idea as you need to be on the course guidance inside the FAF. Approaches that use cross radials to identify a FAF don't require Dual VORs, but they do require them to identify step down fixes after the FAF since you're not supposed to switch off the approach guidance.
Also, not all FAFs are identifiable using cross radials. You can usually avail yourself of radar vectors from ATC as long as coverage in the area is good. This way you could leave your lone VOR on just the LOC frequency. I'm sure you've heard this, but if you're planning on doing hard IMC with any regularity you might want to look into a panel upgrade. All of this IFR stuff with minimum equipment is fun in theory, but in reality will limit your options to a large extent, and in IFR having plan Bs and Cs etc is a must.
@@flightinsight9111 Thanks. Upgrading the panel is out of my control because I rent. But I have started looking at other rental options or even possibly ownership.
…now that I look again at the approach I was thinking of, it requires being able to receive the LOC and separate DME, so I wouldn’t be able to do it single VOR anyway.
Thanks. Very nice review.
the information at 2:31, can somebody tell me the link to access those documents? flight standard service for the ILS approach
You can execute a missed approach at any time. The only problem is that you interpret the MA procedure correctly. In case of Jeppesen they will advise you if it is safe to turn before the MAP. In his second example with the turn. You can do a MA before the MAP but you can not turn until you pass the MAP. In the second example with the altitude restriction you can climb to you final MA altitude but can not turn until you passed the altitude restriction. It would be not safe to continue descending on an approach that is not stable.
When there is the inbound time box printed, the faf to map distance is also printed there. But with no timing defined, it is missing. It still doesnt necessarily answer “where is the map”?
Can you descend before the VDP if items in 91.175 are in sight?
It is not mandatory to obey the Visual Descent Path, but highly recommended.
Are you allowed to drop below DA when executing a published missed approach?
Could you share what type of flight simulator do you use it looks so realistic?
Great explanation....thanks a lot.
one question concerning the values in the parenthesis...I mean (300-3/4).
earlier you mentioned a bit, this is only used in the military?
How should I apply this values in my flight? reference only?
300-ft ceiling minimum for military operators.
Ceiling minimums for civil operators were discontinued in 1967.
@@markprange4386 thank you very much...little bit confused about those numbers....now cleared....
@@widestella5081: A minimum ceiling is a requirement in some countries, like Brazil.
Thank you again
@@widestella5081: Or if landing at a military field. When I flew on a civilian contract into military bases the ceiling minimum applied. But at joint-use airports like Yuma, I don't think it applies.
MDA and MAP very important. N744Z.
Nice job.
The missed approach point IS, as you said, the 1.0 ILS DME, and it is clearly illustrated to anyone who knows how to read the chart.
Unable to find the form 8260-3 for my local airport could you help us please
Thank you
Would love a video on flying in and out of a class Charlie airport. i got my PPL in G airport and am super nervous on comms and it can be very confusing
I got a transistor radio that had the aviation comm frequencies. Listened near Washington National. It helped, especially hearing Clearance Delivery.
Wrt to the example of the LOC RWY 23 at KFDK, if the MAP is ultimately defined in terms of time from the FAF, which you said correlates (inversely) with ground speed rather than air speed, how can you determine this precisely using only the minimum required equipment (i.e. without GPS to give you ground speed)?
HI, you just have to make a guesstimate based on some reported wind such as SFC wind from ATC or METAR. I personally do this even for VFR approaches to get an idea of crosswind. Same deal with preparing for my first lap of the hold. There are some legacy alternatives to GPS that will provide GS directly though, for instance a 'Groundspeed and Drift Indicator', or RNAV with other than GPS although obviously those things are rare in the GA fleet.
The method I use from first principles is to get the reported wind and then approximate the components using 'RAF clock code'. Although it does not lend itself to an easy textual description, once learned it is pretty user friendly and provides a useful approximation. Other methods are available.
There is a rusty abandoned e6b in some garbage dump that is crying out in pain right now.
I will argue that a 3 degree glide slope is not the only “stable” approach. I have made stable approaches often as much steeper descent rates in Cessna 150 through 182s as we always made power off gliding approaches where I learned to fly. There is nothing inherently unstable about a steeper approach in the appropriate airplane with appropriate pilot skill. I can make stable approaches well inside the VDP.
In my view you are mixing terminologies. A stable approach is usually defined as an approach that has a stable approach trajectory (laterally and vertically) from the beginning of the final approach to either touch down or missed approach. Which would be fulfilled with a power off approach, but not with a power off approach within a VDP which, presumably, has a different section of approach in front of it leading to that VDP.
It is of course blatantly obvious that 3° is only the standard approach slope, there are others of course and those can be flown stabilized as well. The 5.5 degrees ILS into London City has created its own class of aircraft, and many military approaches are at a lower angle than 3 degrees, down to 2.5 degrees.
@@Soordhin I simply disagree with the FAAs definition of a stable approach. No approach is stable in the true meaning of the word as the altitude is continuously varying.
@@LTVoyager Well, of course it is obvious that in any approach the altitude changes. But it should do so in a uniform manner, like for example in a stabilized approach in the conventional sense. Which, by the way, has been established in blood, as is very much usual in aviation. Dive and drive approaches are inherently unsafe compared to CDFA ones and the statistics are extremely clear on that point. Which is why the main user of IFR approaches, the airlines, do use them pretty much exclusively.
@@Soordhin The airlines don’t fly 172s and 182s. I routinely and safely made approaches in my 182 that would not be safe in a 737. This is the problem with the FAA’s definition: it is not suitable for all airplanes. Except at large airports when requested by ATC, I always have flown power-off 180 approaches as that is how I learned in 1977 and it works well. This would not be the best way to land a 737, but it is fantastic in a 182 and keeps the pattern tight, saves time and once I pull back power on the downwind leg, there is no concern about an engine failure between there and touchdown. Any pilot that can’t handle power and rate of descent changes on an instrument approach is probably also not competent to make a safe go-around should the need arise as a go-around is a much more intensive maneuver than is a simple power and rate of descent change on final.
At 2:20 you stated that the defined MAP for the Loc4 is the I-FGH 1 DME. But at 5:30 you say that there is no defined MAP on the very same approach. Respectfully, your vids on this issue (non-precision MAPs) are inconsistent and often incorrect.
The comparison of the two views later in the video is between a defined point where the bold line meets the dashed missed proc on one approach, versus the other (the Loc 4), where that point is not defined. The point is to show why the approaches are depicted differently. That doesn't conflict with saying there is a defined MAP for each approach.
....so at 2:20 if you go back a bit he states "there is no defined point this occurs" and then after 2:20 says "[but] there is still a missed approach point indicated". And to my mind that is consistent with what is being said at 5:30, as in, the point where the solid line changes to the dashed line is not defined on the first plate but it is on the second plate because it coincides with an explicit fix.