Bonanza 36
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 197; Flight Crew Total 5495; Flight Crew Type 382
Situational Awareness; Distraction; Fatigue
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Human Factors
Approaching ZZZ in IMC from the northeast; we were being vectored by ZZZ approach for the ILS to [Runway] XXR. The student was flying but did not slow the airplane down as he did not realize that we were being vectored to a close in intercept of the localizer and would be above the glide slope. The airplane was being flown on the autopilot in heading and vertical speed mode. I directed him to slow down but he was getting behind the airplane. I told him to lower flaps and landing gear to slow the airplane. He had reduced manifold pressure but not deployed flaps nor gear.As we intercepted the localizer we were still fast and above the glide slope. He engaged the autopilot to approach mode but it flew through the localizer and was still above the glide slope. At this point I realized that he was losing situational awareness. ATC gave us a vector to re-intercept the localizer and I called for autopilot disconnect and took control of the aircraft. We were above the glide slope and slowing down however; we were not intercepting the glide slope but paralleling it high. I called for the gear again as I was trying to correct the out of trim condition and maintain localizer.As I intercepted the glide slope; I had too fast a descent rate and descended below. During this time; we were switched to Tower. The student attempted to contact the tower but didn't switch the radio frequency. As I was correcting the low condition ATC issued a low altitude alert and issued what sounded like a missed approach instruction; but the transmission was blocked. At this time; we broke out of the clouds and I had visual contact with the runway. We were approximately 1;500 feet AGL. I advised ATC that we were visual and continued the approach. We were cleared to land. The student then lowered the gear and I performed the landing without incident. This could have been prevented by breaking off the approach when we realized that we were above the glide slope and still fast. We should have requested vectors back to intercept the localizer and glide slope. I believe that fatigue played a major role in this situation and my not recognizing that the approach was not stabilized and the student's loss of situational awareness. We had been flying for over 6 hours on this trip and had spent several hours at 10;000 feet. I think that I was depending on the autopilot to perform the approach and the student executing as desired. These expectations were not realized and I too got behind the airplane. The autopilot will not capture the glide slope when intercepted from above; however; the student lost track of this limitation. In the future; I will break off the approach when confronted with a 'slam dunk' situation and more carefully monitor the student's situational awareness. Also the approach briefing needs to include where to begin speed reductions.
BE36 Instructor reported due to a long flight and possibly fatigue; the Instructor and Student Pilot got behind on an instrument approach; received a low altitude alert from Tower; and executed an unstable approach.