Workload Management During IAPs

CONFIGURATION GATES

Consistent power settings and configurations create predictable aircraft performance, establishing what are commonly referred to as profiles. Applying these profiles during an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) reduces pilot workload and enhances predictability as the aircraft passes through predetermined gates. This allows the pilot to focus on making fine adjustments throughout the approach phase rather than managing large configuration changes. In most cases, an instrument approach can be divided into three primary gates, each representing a point by which the aircraft should be properly configured before crossing.

Gate 1: Initial Approach Fix or Vectors to Final

I always aim to pass

through each gate at a precise airspeed and flap setting. For example, when flying the Cirrus SR-20 G6, I target 120 KIAS with flaps up, which typically requires approximately 70% power, with fine adjustments as necessary to maintain that speed based on specific conditions. As I transition from the en-route phase through terminal airspace into the approach structure, I begin slowing about three minutes before reaching the first gate, aligning with standard holding-speed reduction procedures in the event I need to hold at the IAF. When ATC issues vectors to the final approach course, a practical guideline is to start decelerating and configuring the aircraft when on the base leg of that vector. This ensures that the aircraft is neither overly slow too far out—potentially disrupting ATC sequencing—nor in a rushed configuration near the gate, which would permit a higher workload.

Gate 2: Final Approach Fix

The next gate in the approach procedure is the Final Approach Fix (FAF). At this point, two conditions may apply depending on the type of approach being flown. If the approach includes vertical guidance—such as a glideslope on an ILS or a glidepath on an LPV, LNAV/VNAV, or an advisory diamond—then this point serves as the point where the aircraft intercepts and begins to follow that vertical profile. Conversely, if the approach lacks vertical guidance and uses a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) instead, the FAF represents the point at which the aircraft maintains altitude until visual references are established.

Condition 1: Vertical Guidance

Using the Cirrus SR-20 G6 as an example, the transition from the initial segment speed of 120 KIAS through the Final Approach Fix (FAF) and into the final approach segment must be carefully managed. Typically, when the aircraft is at or below 120 KIAS, the FAF on an approach with vertical guidance corresponds to the point at which the glideslope or glidepath indicates a half-scale deflection upward. For the Cirrus SR-20 G6, this gate is typically crossed at 100 KIAS with 50% flaps deployed, requiring approximately 60% power to maintain a stable descent.

Condition 2: No Vertical Guidance

When vertical guidance to the runway is not available, configuration for the Final Approach Fix (FAF) should begin within approximately 2 nautical miles of the FAF. This distance provides sufficient time to configure the aircraft and stabilize it at 100 KIAS with 50% flaps deployed, typically requiring around 50% power to maintain a steady approach.

Gate 3: The Missed Approach Segment

Regarding the use of full flaps (100%), the primary objective is to minimize pilot workload during the approach. Therefore, we typically complete the landing with a partial flap setting of 50%. This approach allows the pilot to fly the final segment with minimal distractions, maintaining a stable approach and enabling full attention to flightpath management.

AUTOPILOT MANAGEMENT

The autopilot is an invaluable tool for reducing pilot workload during the approach phase; however, improper use can significantly increase workload. Proper timing when managing autopilot mode transitions—such as from vertical speed to altitude hold or heading to navigation mode—is critical. It is advisable to avoid engaging in other tasks while the autopilot is changing modes to maintain situational awareness.

While I may choose to hand-fly the approach, I always ensure the automation is properly set up regardless. Flying solely with the flight director is a matter of personal preference; however, this method requires the pilot to both fly the aircraft and manage automation settings. When flying with the flight director alone, the pilot will observe the command bars on the Primary Flight Display (PFD), but the autopilot servos will remain inactive. The pilot follows the flight director’s command bars through manual inputs, provided the correct mode is engaged.

Certain approaches may restrict the use of autopilot-coupled operations below specified altitudes. In such cases, it is essential to brief the point at which automation will be disengaged—ideally at a position where the aircraft is stable, with no significant changes in flightpath or configuration. Even after autopilot disengagement, the flight director can still be used to assist manual flying.

AVIONICS MANAGEMENT

Managing avionics during the approach phase is a critical skill that can significantly impact pilot workload. Similar to automation, avionics systems serve as essential tools that can either alleviate or exacerbate workload depending on their effective use. While every pilot should be thoroughly familiar with the specific avionics configuration of their aircraft, there are several general principles and scenarios that can facilitate more efficient avionics management across diverse platforms.

Loading vs. Activating

As a general rule, pilots should always load the intended procedure before activating it. For example, when transitioning from a STAR and en-route phase into the terminal environment, I program the flight management system (FMS) for the approach that ATC has advised me to expect. Upon activating the procedure, the aircraft may begin turning toward the Initial Approach Fix (IAF), potentially departing the STAR path without explicit ATC clearance to do so.

It is important to avoid using the “Activate Approach” button in the FMS. Contrary to common belief, this function does not perform as expected. In SBAS-equipped systems such as the Garmin G1000 or popular GTN units, the “Activate Approach” command simply changes the navigation target without providing the pilot with an opportunity to confirm or adjust the intended navigation fix, in other words, it will just sequence direct-to the first fix for the appraoch you just activated. In contrast, other commands such as direct-to or leg activation always prompt the pilot for confirmation, ensuring deliberate inputs. “Activate Approach” bypasses this safeguard, which can result in unintended courses and possibly even pilot deviations.

Vectors to Final (VTF) vs. Initial Approach Fix (IAF)

Vectors to the final approach may be communicated as a hint from ATC, so it is important to listen attentively. Controllers might say, “expect vectors for the approach,” or they may begin issuing vectors without prior notice. Even when anticipating vectors onto the final approach course, I always load the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) that best corresponds to my planned route of flight. This practice ensures preparedness in the event ATC revises instructions and directs me to proceed directly to the IAF. If I had preloaded vectors to final, I would be required to reload the entire approach procedure to comply with such a change, as most GPS systems do not permit navigating backward through an approach—only forward progression is supported. Additionally, having the IAF already loaded simplifies the transition to a holding pattern if necessary, thereby reducing pilot workload during critical phases of flight.

Loading an Approach with Conventional Navigation

When receiving vectors to the Final Approach Fix (FAF) for an ILS approach or any conventional approach, it is permissible not to load the procedure into the Flight Management System (FMS), provided the approach does not require distance information. However, it is strongly advisable to load the approach in advance. Consider the missed approach segment: in the event of a missed approach, the aircraft will be low, slow, and configured for landing—a high workload environment as you also execute this segment of the approach. Without the procedure loaded, the pilot must manually dial in navigation settings to fly the missed approach segment conventionally, which can be demanding under stress.

By contrast, if the approach is preloaded in the FMS, activating the missed approach is as simple as selecting the suspend softkey, allowing the FMS to initiate and navigate the missed approach segment automatically. For this reason, I always load the full approach into the FMS, even for ground-based approaches where it may not be required. Effective workload management is paramount, and the last thing a pilot needs is to manipulate navigation radios and controls at 400 feet AGL in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), while slow, configured for landing, and likely experiencing increased stress—especially given how infrequently real-life missed approaches are practiced.