ALSF I nonstandard
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: northern emisphere!
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALSF I nonstandard
Look at this airport, 10-9 chart says the ALS is ALSF I
However jeppesen man shows a different type of ALSF I
So can an ALS be nonstandard and still be classified as ALSF I?
Any source of info?
However jeppesen man shows a different type of ALSF I
So can an ALS be nonstandard and still be classified as ALSF I?
Any source of info?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that I understand the question. ALSF-1 (Approach Lighting with Sequenced Flashers), type 1 denotes that the red supplementary barrettes do not extend to the crossbar. All of the above diagrams are representative of that.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@totalbeginner
the jeppesen chart should show the barrettes is what colorblind is suggesting.
so either the alsf is non-standard without barrettes or the chart is not accurate.
the jeppesen chart should show the barrettes is what colorblind is suggesting.
so either the alsf is non-standard without barrettes or the chart is not accurate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: northern emisphere!
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct, I am trying to understand if a state can install an approach light system without a required component (in this case the final part, barrettes) and still certify it to an ALSF I standard.
Just curious, that's all!
Just curious, that's all!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: northern emisphere!
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
found another 10 airports, hungary, turkey, bulgaria..
all alsf-I, all exactly depicted as the 1st airport I posted.
So all with the barrettes missing..
Go figure!
all alsf-I, all exactly depicted as the 1st airport I posted.
So all with the barrettes missing..
Go figure!
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i believe it has something to do with FAA vs non-FAA 
see this (old) video for example:
https://youtu.be/ghz8FaJYuZ8?t=193
here you can see two versions for CAT I approaches that have no red lights at all.
more interestingly the "strange" version with lots of bars in reducing width can be seen for example in zurich as part of an ALSF-2. as the video says for CAT II the last 300m became standardized because you don't always get to see the rest anyway
see this (old) video for example:
https://youtu.be/ghz8FaJYuZ8?t=193
here you can see two versions for CAT I approaches that have no red lights at all.
more interestingly the "strange" version with lots of bars in reducing width can be seen for example in zurich as part of an ALSF-2. as the video says for CAT II the last 300m became standardized because you don't always get to see the rest anyway
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may have nothing to do with this ALSF 1 installation, however FAR 91.175 states in part: (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
This FAR lists the red side row bars, or the red terminating bars as a specific visual reference. My limited understanding is that there are US runways approved for 1800 RVR approaches under CAT 1, rather than the standard 2400RVR. This is the case if the runway has CATII lighting (ALSF II). That is the ALSFII with the long red sidebars and red terminating lights.
Could it be that the non-standard ALSF 1 shown with the notice is to ensure that lower minimums cannot be predicated on the limited Red terminating bars as this is a non-standard configuration? That's just my limited $.02
(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
This FAR lists the red side row bars, or the red terminating bars as a specific visual reference. My limited understanding is that there are US runways approved for 1800 RVR approaches under CAT 1, rather than the standard 2400RVR. This is the case if the runway has CATII lighting (ALSF II). That is the ALSFII with the long red sidebars and red terminating lights.
Could it be that the non-standard ALSF 1 shown with the notice is to ensure that lower minimums cannot be predicated on the limited Red terminating bars as this is a non-standard configuration? That's just my limited $.02
