A320/320 Side Step aproaches
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Do not disengage the automatics (AP/FD/ATHR).
2) activate SEC FPLN (if it is already programmed with new RWY), otherwise change RWY in the primary FPLN (recommended).
3) aircraft will automatically turn towards and intercept the new LOC and it will pitch UP/DN to maintain the new GS.
4) FMA will keep showing GS & LOC.
5) GPWS will not activate as the new GS is close the old GS.
I found the aircraft (320/A330/A340) does it much better if it is taken by HDG then rearming APPR (follow new GS by controlling VS until fully established). Thanks
2) activate SEC FPLN (if it is already programmed with new RWY), otherwise change RWY in the primary FPLN (recommended).
3) aircraft will automatically turn towards and intercept the new LOC and it will pitch UP/DN to maintain the new GS.
4) FMA will keep showing GS & LOC.
5) GPWS will not activate as the new GS is close the old GS.
I found the aircraft (320/A330/A340) does it much better if it is taken by HDG then rearming APPR (follow new GS by controlling VS until fully established). Thanks
AP off, FD off, Bird on and activate the secondary.
Simples.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465:
Every runway at LAX has side-step minimums to the adjacent runway.
That's very clever the way they give you a sidestep option from the runway closest to the terminal over to a runway further from the terminal so on your taxi to the terminal after landing you can hold to cross the original runway you would have landed on had you not sidestepped.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok465:
LAX was the "test case" for side-step minimums. They came about when all CTL minimums for the airport were deleted. RNAV wasn't even a dream at the time.
Besides, no one flies RNAV approaches at LAX. Having said that, RNAV side-step minimums are authorized in FAAO 8260.19F.
The sidestep minimums are only associated with the ILSs, not the runways.
The RNAVs have no sidestep minima below basic VFR, not even circling.
The RNAVs have no sidestep minima below basic VFR, not even circling.
Besides, no one flies RNAV approaches at LAX. Having said that, RNAV side-step minimums are authorized in FAAO 8260.19F.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sidestep on the spur of the moment can be done quicky without nuisances if you switch the GPWS G/S mode OFF. No FMS reprogramming. For go around, follow ATC instructions. A sidestep is a particular case of visual approach.
In the airbus, even GS mini will be quite useful since wind should be similar.
If the sidestep is foreseen, then activate secondary.
In the airbus, even GS mini will be quite useful since wind should be similar.
If the sidestep is foreseen, then activate secondary.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting: sidestep minima!
Never seen before, but this gringos, you know them…
And it can't be assimilated to a circling approach either: 343 ft is below circling minima.
Never seen before, but this gringos, you know them…
And it can't be assimilated to a circling approach either: 343 ft is below circling minima.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster
side step remains a visual manoeuvre even with a minima. Since the runway that is being side stepped into does not have a glide slope the side step minima is prescribed otherwise you will have to use circling minima which much higher. There is Jeppesen document below will clear your doubts.
http://ww1.jeppesen.com/download/aopa/mar00aopa.pdf
side step remains a visual manoeuvre even with a minima. Since the runway that is being side stepped into does not have a glide slope the side step minima is prescribed otherwise you will have to use circling minima which much higher. There is Jeppesen document below will clear your doubts.
http://ww1.jeppesen.com/download/aopa/mar00aopa.pdf
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Villas:
1. LAX does not have circling minimums.
2. Runway 6L has a full ILS with approach lights just as 6R does. (see below.)
3. I have no doubt that an MDA of less than 400 feet above runway elevation with RVR of 5,000 is a visual maneuver in the same sense that landing straight in with a DA 0f 200 and RVR 2400 is a visual maneuver.
As the Jeppesen article states, I must have the "runway environment" in sight to sidestep from 6R to 6L or 6L to 6R. That could just be the approach lights without the runway in sight when I begin the sidestep maneuver at under 500 feet, msl.
side step remains a visual manoeuvre even with a minima. Since the runway that is being side stepped into does not have a glide slope the side step minima is prescribed otherwise you will have to use circling minima which much higher. There is Jeppesen document below will clear your doubts.
2. Runway 6L has a full ILS with approach lights just as 6R does. (see below.)
3. I have no doubt that an MDA of less than 400 feet above runway elevation with RVR of 5,000 is a visual maneuver in the same sense that landing straight in with a DA 0f 200 and RVR 2400 is a visual maneuver.
As the Jeppesen article states, I must have the "runway environment" in sight to sidestep from 6R to 6L or 6L to 6R. That could just be the approach lights without the runway in sight when I begin the sidestep maneuver at under 500 feet, msl.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster
LAX may have other reasons for side step. May be when designed had only one ILS. The point is you cannot be asked to side step when not visual when near minima. That requires head down work. As I can see from 06R to left is a small change 06 left is very close. Any change more than 15 degrees becomes circling approach and cannot be done if not permitted.
LAX may have other reasons for side step. May be when designed had only one ILS. The point is you cannot be asked to side step when not visual when near minima. That requires head down work. As I can see from 06R to left is a small change 06 left is very close. Any change more than 15 degrees becomes circling approach and cannot be done if not permitted.
Last edited by vilas; 1st Dec 2014 at 15:12. Reason: correction
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For that kind of runways the sidestep is almost non-existent.
It is like landing in a taxiway instead of the runway.
LOC minima is more than enough for that, but of course you should know which runway you are landing well before 343' AGL...
It is like landing in a taxiway instead of the runway.
LOC minima is more than enough for that, but of course you should know which runway you are landing well before 343' AGL...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465:
I have FAA source documentation back to 1998. The earliest change I have is 2001 where the DAs are the same as today, but the RVR was 6000.
I was based at LAX from 1964 to 1990 and never recall sidestep minimums like these. I did it a few times but in basically VFR conditions and at least 3 miles out.
If someone actually does it today at these minimums I believe sooner or later a fireball would be the result. Sometimes the FAA is just plain nuts.
Though the viz mins are aircraft speed category related, the real consideration as far as how challenging the sidesteps are to fly from closer in and down lower is not only the aircraft speed category, but the roll inertia involved.
I was based at LAX from 1964 to 1990 and never recall sidestep minimums like these. I did it a few times but in basically VFR conditions and at least 3 miles out.
If someone actually does it today at these minimums I believe sooner or later a fireball would be the result. Sometimes the FAA is just plain nuts.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465:
But a lot of pilot union members do. Perhaps they know something we don't. When I have a chance I'll try to find something in the ATC Handbook.
The FAA doesn't operate any 500,000 lb flight check aircraft.
06L to 06R 214m sidestep and 300m shorter aimpoint all from 320ft AGL sounds a bit sus to me? 
I'd get done like a dog's dinner by the FDAP if I tried that here...
I'd get done like a dog's dinner by the FDAP if I tried that here...
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 2nd Dec 2014 at 13:05. Reason: Got my lefts and rights mixed up.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the FAA controller's handbook:
4-8-7. SIDE-STEP MANEUVER
Side-step Maneuver. When authorized by an instrument approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft that landing will be made on a parallel runway.
EXAMPLE-
"Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side-step to runway seven right.”
NOTE-
Side-step maneuvers require higher weather minima/ MDA. These higher minima/MDA are published on the instrument approach charts.
4-8-7. SIDE-STEP MANEUVER
Side-step Maneuver. When authorized by an instrument approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft that landing will be made on a parallel runway.
EXAMPLE-
"Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side-step to runway seven right.”
NOTE-
Side-step maneuvers require higher weather minima/ MDA. These higher minima/MDA are published on the instrument approach charts.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting NASA ASRS Report:
An ATC local controller requested a late sidestep maneuver to lax runway 24L. The A319 crew refused because of the heads down attention diversion late in approach.
NASA ASRS Report 687822
An ATC local controller requested a late sidestep maneuver to lax runway 24L. The A319 crew refused because of the heads down attention diversion late in approach.
NASA ASRS Report 687822
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company allows sidesteps down to 300 feet (i.e. wings level, on centerline of the sidestepping runway latest 300 feet, and during the maneuver of course all other stabilized criteria met). So it is entirely possible to be become VMC at less than 1000 feet and break off to a parallel runway at e.g. 700 feet. If it can avoid a go-around due to someone not taking off fast enough at the original runway - why not give it a try, and if it doesn't work: TOGA.
However, in such case (no matter type), I would absolutely say to keep heads up and concentrate on flying the aircraft - both pilots. PM being just as active looking outside and monitoring flight instruments, for excessive deviations.
If the company have chosen to allow sidesteps at such low altitudes, and it triggers e.g. a "below G/S" warning for the original runway, I think whoever analyses the FODA data should be able to interpret the situation and discard it as being within limits of the SOP. And should they have questions, it shouldn't be difficult to explain the situation and why a go around was not performed, if everything was within limits.
What is written in you SOPs about the subject? And what about sending your safety department an email inquiring about the subject. I know there are some companies that uses FODA to punish. My company is fortunately sensible and a FODA is no big deal if there is a rational explanation. Most of the time they are even sensible enough to sort the irrelevant excursion out by themselves.
This is an example of FODA being contra productive to safety. I.e. causing you to take actions to avoid a FODA, distracting from on the task at hand.
However, in such case (no matter type), I would absolutely say to keep heads up and concentrate on flying the aircraft - both pilots. PM being just as active looking outside and monitoring flight instruments, for excessive deviations.
If the company have chosen to allow sidesteps at such low altitudes, and it triggers e.g. a "below G/S" warning for the original runway, I think whoever analyses the FODA data should be able to interpret the situation and discard it as being within limits of the SOP. And should they have questions, it shouldn't be difficult to explain the situation and why a go around was not performed, if everything was within limits.
What is written in you SOPs about the subject? And what about sending your safety department an email inquiring about the subject. I know there are some companies that uses FODA to punish. My company is fortunately sensible and a FODA is no big deal if there is a rational explanation. Most of the time they are even sensible enough to sort the irrelevant excursion out by themselves.
This is an example of FODA being contra productive to safety. I.e. causing you to take actions to avoid a FODA, distracting from on the task at hand.
