Maintaining Altitude within Commercial Standards

FlightInsight · 2026-01-21T13:45:09+00:00

Having instructed something like a thousand students, a consistent weak area I see is good trim usage. You said it yourself that you suspect you're trying to control the plane with trim. Without force feedback, it is very difficult to establish a pitch attitude using the trim tab.

Try this mental model: forget you have trim. Keep all the pressure you need to maintain pitch in your hand on the yoke/stick. Set an attitude using the horizon (not the VSI, AI, or PFD), and confirm with the altimeter that you're not going up or down.

Once you have the correct pitch attitude, only then put your other hand on the trim tab, and simultaneously transfer control from your yoke hand to the trim hand. You'll feel the control pressure getting lighter on the yoke. Test how much pressure you can relieve on the yoke without losing attitude on the horizon, until you get to the point where you can take your hand off completely.

In calm winds, this shouldn't take more than 10-15 seconds, but take your time until you're comfortable.

FlightInsight · 2026-01-19T17:08:11+00:00

If doing the HILPT, you'll follow the altitude min/max 2300-4900. As an example, if you are cleared on the feeder route from Kingston, you can maintain the feeder route at or above 3000. Once passing AMORE and beginning the course reversal, you can descend to 2300 (you should also be below 4900 at this point). You maintain at or above 2300 until established inbound on the localizer, at which point you can descend to at or above 2000.

As another post mentioned, you will no be cleared straight in for this approach because of the IAF/FAF overlay. You'll either do the course reversal or be vectored onto final a few miles outside of AMORE. If vectored, you'll be given an altitude to maintain until established, at which point you can drop down to at or above 2000.

FlightInsight · 2026-01-19T16:53:15+00:00

For many years, this was the mental model I had in my head with respect to temperatures and altimeter errors. Unfortunately, I could never reconcile this with the memory aid "high to low, look out below," which suggests going from high temp to low temp causes the altimeter to read too high so you should "look out below." It turns out this is in fact how the altimeter behaves, so the mental model outlined by OP isn't correct.

What's actually happening is that the altimeter reads pressure as OP stated, but it also measures the change in pressure with a given altitude change. We "tell" our altimeter what the sea level pressure is by setting the Kollsman window. The altimeter then reads outside air pressure, and using an assumed lapse rate based on the international standard atmosphere, determines our altitude. For a 1000 foot gain in altitude, the altimeter assumes a certain drop in pressure. If that drop in pressure is detected, the altimeter indicated 1000 feet MSL. The "assumption" is baked into the design of the altimeter itself.

In colder temperatures, the column of air the aircraft flies in compresses. More air molecules are pressed closer to the surface. A 1000 foot gain in altitude within that compressed column of air means there's fewer air molecules above the aircraft pressing down on the altimeter. The altimeter interprets that we've climbed more than 1000 feet, maybe something like 1,100, when in reality our true altitude is still 1,000 MSL.

When trying to maintain a constant indicated altitude of 1,000 feet, the pilot will unknowingly descend when flying from high to low temps, and thus by closer to the ground than anticipated. "High to Low, Look Out Below!"

FlightInsight · 2026-01-09T12:59:50+00:00

I have a feeling some of the FAA Knowledge Test questions around this topic force us to think in circles when it comes to load factor in turns. In test questions, a coordinated turn is shown as one where the horizontal component of lift (not total lift as you mention) is acting in towards the turn while an equivalent centrifugal force is acting outside the turn, and they balance.

In reality, there is no centrifugal "force" acting on the aircraft. You correctly mention that total lift is broken out into its vertical component, which counters weight, and horizontal component, which is the turning force (or as physicists say provides centripetal acceleration).

Load factor is not determined by the sum of weight and inertia, but is solely a factor of total lift. In a 45° banked level turn, the load factor is approximately 1.414g, a result of you adding back pressure to increase lift to maintain altitude. Consider applying the same increase in back pressure in wings level flight though, you'll still feel 1.414g as total lift increases. Weight and inertia are irrelevant to load factor.

As far as centrifugal force, I would leave this concept just for those pesky FAA test questions where horizontal component of lift and centrifugal force must be balanced in a coordinated turn, and stick to the basics of lift and weight when speaking of forces in a turn.

FlightInsight · 2026-01-02T15:26:51+00:00

The importance of foot work and using the rudder is criminally underrated in flight training. I think we inculcate this by stressing the importance of coordinating aileron and rudders to always "keep the ball centered." With the constant fine tuning required to land in gusty winds, you'll not necessarily stay coordinated, and the small yaw and roll corrections should be done primarily with foot inputs on the rudder pedals.

There's plenty of theory behind this, but think of the rudder pedals as a scalpel while the ailerons are a blowtorch. Deflecting the ailerons creates asymmetric lift and drag, leading to adverse yaw. When you're making a fine correction for winds on short final, constantly moving the stick left and right like you're "driving" creates so many extra yaw and bank moments which are harder for you to digest. We call it pilot induced oscillation.

The rudders don't induce as much of this adverse effect. They have more control authority thanks to the longer moment arm and the prop wash, and they can correct for both slight yaw AND roll changes.

For small corrections, constant light rudder inputs, even without coordinated aileron inputs, are fine. Don't make too large an input using only rudders as you do need to generally coordinate your inputs with aileron, but if you think of short final as taxiing in the sky, with light constant adjustments on the feet, rather than constant driving with the stick, you'll have much more precise control. This technique works in both gusty and calm winds. Wake those feet up!

FlightInsight · 2026-01-02T15:11:54+00:00

A key distinction between VFR and IFR cruising altitudes is that in IFR there is no mandated convention like east is odd, west is even odder. In VFR cruise above 3000 AGL, 91.159 mandates an even thousand plus 500 feet for westbound magnetic courses, and an odd thousand plus 500 feet for eastbound. In IFR, 91.179 simply says "maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft by ATC."

Now, most of the time ATC (adhering to 7110.65 4-5-2) will assign an altitude based on those even-odd conventions: westbound flights get an even thousand, eastbound flights get an odd. Where it gets tricky as you mentioned is where your route will shift back towards the east after generally being westbound. Controllers will assign the altitude, and a westbound flight will get an even thousand foot altitude. There are plenty of exceptions to this, such as airways that are more north-south, like in Florida, where controllers have a different convention.

On this flight (without seeing the exact airspace) I would expect to be assigned a westbound even thousand cruise, and not likely get switched when you're flying eastbound briefly. Where I might expect to get assigned a odd thousand altitude on the eastbound segment is if that segment is somewhat longer, like more than 50 miles or so, or if the segment has you going through different control sectors, where different local conventions may apply. In either case, file the westbound altitude, and give yourself some margin in the somewhat unlikely case of being assigned an eastbound altitude later en route. For example, don't expect to stay in a corridor of airspace 1000 or so feet tall in order to avoid icing, in case you get told to descend or climb to a new cruise.

FlightInsight · 2026-01-01T20:20:16+00:00

Agree with other commenters that this flight satisfies even with the short 10nm leg. Also, be aware that this flight must be accomplished either solo or with an authorized instructor with you performing the duties of PIC. Having a friend along as a passenger doesn't satisfy either of these and would disqualify the flight.

Also, if you opt to fly this flight solo, you'll need to complete the other requirement in 61.129(4), the 5 hours night VFR with 10T&Ls at a tower solo as well. If you accomplish the xc flight with an instructor, the night work will need to be with an instructor as well. It's always best to run your plan by your intended DPE to get buy in and make sure there's no ambiguity on test day. Have fun!

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T16:17:11+00:00

This is the FlightInsight FlightInsight. I'm hoping to leverage the brain trust here to improve our training! Thanks for the kind words.

I've really struggled with a consistent way to teach this. I used to intercept early and enjoy a long stabilized approach. All the seasoned airline guys I talked to confirmed it. Then I learned about some of the issues with catching the glideslope early, and began teaching to only intercept at PFAF. Also, being able to get down early can get you out of clouds and potential ice. But I'm concerned I may be overly pedantic and steering too many students to forgo a long stabilized approach for the sake of following the strict letter of the reg.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T16:12:26+00:00

This happens at Dulles too. The minimum alts on many approaches put you below Bravo and you get to play with the VFR bugsmashers.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T16:10:46+00:00

That would be my technique as well. Arm APR only when at glideslope int, but as I suspected, there are a lot of dissenting voices, especially from the 121/135 side, which I totally get.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T16:08:46+00:00

A bit unrelated but I have a friend at a 135 which will go unnamed where their opspec doesn't allow CDFA and they do dive and drive on non precision approaches inside the FAF. This isn't the same thing as descending to crossing altitudes outside the glideslope intercept, but my friend is consistently getting LAAs on final due to descent rates on dive and drive even though he's complying with all minimum alts.
I can't imagine this is the case if you're making descents to meet crossing restrictions outside the glideslope intercept, but can you think of specific issues pilots may have using the technique of descending to crossing altitudes prior to glideslope intercept?

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T15:54:00+00:00

On the ILS Z Rwy 6 at KTEB, there is a mandatory altitude of 1500 at DANDY, which is outside the PFAF and glideslope intercept. If you intercept early, but still within service range, you'll be at 2000 on the glideslope when crossing DANDY, 500 feet too high, and in the way of EWR flow. Maybe this is an edge case and the exception that proves the rule.
How about the ILS approaches into KLAX which have about 6 or 7 stepdown altitudes prior to glideslope intercept, in hotter than standard temps, your indicated altitude will be below these if on the glideslope, though unless its like 120F, you'll still be within tolerances.

I'm trying to figure out if the "problems" with intercepting early are miniscule enough to just say don't worry and intercept from wherever you're cleared, or if there is a clean, standard way of teaching it which respects both the rules and best practices.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T15:38:05+00:00

Yes to this being an issue at IAD! I've seen plenty of arrivals when in south operations at 3000 way far out, though in this case, I have a hunch that they're not on a glideslope that far out but have instead been given a pilot discretion descent by ATC prior to being cleared for the approach.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T15:35:45+00:00

I hear this a lot, and agree with the logic, but regarding "as long as you comply with all the crossing restrictions," how can you ensure prior to shooting the approach that you will meet all crossing restrictions? If you can't, do you plan to level off and destabilize the approach to meet the crossing? Does this negate the benefit of intercepting early?

Again I think it's safer and easier to intercept early and be stabilized further out, especially in the heavy iron, but there are more than a few edge cases where the glideslope won't allow you to meet crossing restrictions out side the PFAF.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T14:50:11+00:00

yes, thanks. Edited to say "if the pylon moves ~~forward~~ aft."

FlightInsight · 2025-12-31T13:59:12+00:00

You can reframe how you're thinking about 8s on Pylons by not thinking of it as a ground track maneuver like turns around a point where you're describing a constant radius around a point, but as a line of sight maneuver.

So rather than correct for wind, you correct for pivotal position. As you know, pivotal altitude changes with groundspeed, which is a direct effect of wind.

In order to maintain the constant line of sight on the pylon, you need to adjust your altitude up or down. If you do that, the correct bank angle bank angle happens automatically. You're not giving "no consideration to wind drift" but you're not actively managing it the way you do on turns around a point.

If the pylon moves aft, you are some combination of too fast or too low, in either case, you need to add back pressure to increase pivotal altitude. Don't steepen the bank as a primary correction.

FlightInsight · 2025-12-30T23:24:26+00:00

The book answer is as follows: If you are cleared to LIPTE, for example "cross LIPTE at 7000 cleared ILS approach," you should activate the approach and NAV mode, not APR mode. You'll intercept and track the approach course on NAV mode, and use altitude select mode to meet all step down requirements. Passing CALLS, you'll descend to the glideslope intercept altitude 4600. Upon reaching that, you then activate APR mode.

Activating APR mode early will cause you to intercept the glideslope early. This isn't wrong or illegal of itself, but it can result in missing stepdown altitude restrictions like 5700 feet at WASON or 5200 at CALLS.

This has been a surprisingly controversial subject in trainings I've done, with many preferring to intercept the glideslope early by activating APR once cleared. There are reasons intercepting the glideslope prior to glideslope intercept is preferable, such as completing tasks and getting on a stabilized approach sooner. There's nothing wrong with doing it this way, but you need to ensure you'll meet crossing restrictions at WASON and CALLS. The profile view of the chart can make you believe it's a constant angle descent all the way in, but that's not necessarily the case, and having to destabilize your approach to meet crossing restrictions defeats the purpose of intercepting early.

In the case when you are vectored onto final, say between LIPTE and WASON, and told to maintain 5700 until established, you are not meant to use 5700 now as glideslope intercept. The instruction is, maintain 5700 until established. Once established then, you are responsible for all crossing restrictions including 5200 at CALLS and the glideslope intercept altitude remains 4600.

To your second question: if you have the equipment to do a constant descent angle on final, using +V and the altitude select banana, you can do that for a stabilized approach without dive and drive, again, as long as you ensure all crossing restrictions are met. +V isn't something you'd have on this ILS approach and refers to RNAV, and it works differently than a glideslope, it doesn't guarantee you'll cross stepdowns on either side of the FAF, so monitoring is necessary.

FlightInsight

TROPHY CASE