Oracle427 wrote:When you say buffer above the MDA, do you mean where I begin my level off? I start reducing my descent rate at 100 feet above the MDA and then I hang out about 20 feet above MDA.
Dang I misread that... only 20' above MDA? You must be loaded with midi-chlorians to hold that close of tolerance.
Nick M wrote: However, from one-or-two instrument rating syllabuses I've looked at, ILS approaches would be taught before VOR, NDB or circling approaches (and RNAV GPS stuff) anyway?
In the training program I was in, there was a lot of work with the VOR, ADF, simulated instrument, partial panel etc. And ground sim time... a lot of work especially on such instrument exercises like that "Pattern-A" and the Vertical-S stuff etc. That all before what was termed the instrument rating course.
In terms of an actual training syllabus... I am not sure I even have the ones from the ground sim. However, I do have the one from the final flight course which (mentioned previously) was a combined wrap-up for the Commercial License & Instrument rating. It started off with basic instrument flying maneuvers. Then went to the VOR work / VOR approaches, ADF approaches, then to ILS.
Point being tho... there was quite a bit of basic instrument & navigation work done before actually getting into approaches.
Regarding that Gleim pub on the Vertical-S(s), Pattern-A etc., they are very good drills in preparation for flying instrument approaches. I hope you have taken some time to practice them - that is if you haven't already! Believe me... I know they are work and they can be tedious / boring... even frustrating. But I believe they are worth the effort. It's sort of like going to the gym. Sometimes I don't want to go, I get there and I know I am going to work hard... but I *never* say after a workout, "wow... stupid of me to come here today". So, I am a huge believer in getting the fundamentals down - e.g. in this case pitch / power settings in various phases of flight & aircraft control (tight ± tolerances on heading / altitude / airspeed). And the reason being it will translate directly to flying a tight approach.
Nick M wrote:Also the following paragraph helps me put into perspective why I was having so much trouble with staying on the glideslope as I approached the DH: "How sensitive is the glide slope? It's much more sensitive than the localizer. At the Outer Marker, each dot of glide slope deviation equals about a 50-foot excursion from the prescribed glidepath. At the Middle Marker, the sensitivity is an astounding eight feet per dot."
I appreciate you sharing that - I see that useful in helping to explain "the funnel". I don't think I ever knew the feet. I see Thomas Horne (AOPA) discussed that in an article
Precision Approaches. I thought the Instrument Flying Handbook would have it (as it has a very good visual representation on page 9-36,37) but it just states it this way:
The glidepath is normally 1.4° thick. At 10 NM from the point of touchdown, this represents a vertical distance of approximately 1,500 feet, narrowing to a few feet at touchdown.
Nick M wrote:It's already answered a couple of questions I had, but was afraid to ask.
I wouldn't sweat that. Seriously. Yes, there is value in working on trying to research the answer. But if you get stuck on something... ask. I feel a bit fortunate in this area because, if I don't know or don't remember, I have a pretty good idea where I can go to get the answer. Once, not very long ago, I cold-called an author of a Flight Training article to discuss a related topic regarding an accident investigation (to see if my understanding aligned with his). Guy seemed happy to talk with me and it was good conversation. You know there's a lot of people here willing to discuss their experience - we all like to talk aviation and this a very civil place to do that.
The A2A forum / community has become a favorite of mine as a place of "iron sharpening iron" wrt our understanding of aviation subject matter.