PAPI U/S. Consequences ?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure of the point. Visuals are great ideas, and I spent many a happy day doing them in tiny Greek islands and at major EU hubs. In the islands, with old VASIS the sun often made them invisible and useless. My comment was at night on a circle which equals a low height. A visual started at circuit height or higher is no sweat, or should not be. Glide slope guidance at night, for a shortened visual, is a normal requirement for many companies. It would be unlikely for a commercial jet to be landing at an airfield, at night, on a visual circuit, that did not have PAPI as a minimum aid. That would be an 'out in the sticks' airfield of which there are very very few, if any on commercial jet routes.
Maybe I misinterpreted a post here, your’s or someone else’s, saying visuals were rather rarely done in airline ops. Rather common here, even at major airports, see KSFO.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this gets off track and not comparing apples & apples: we're not talking about visuals yes/no; the discussion drifted from its original question into whether PAPI's are required to conduct a visual, ref the circling chart in France. It then drifted into whether a competent pilot needs glidepath guidance to conduct a visual, and further into whether they are necessary at night.
1. A competent pilot should be able to make a visual approach in daytime without glideslope guidance.
2. There'll be very very few runways serving commercial jet traffic that do not have glideslope guidance.
3. Visuals at night are not a problem., but certainly safer with glideslope guidance; and a mandatory requirement by many operators.
4. ergo; circling a commercial jet at low height is safer with glideslope guidance due to the much shortened finals, and at night is certainly a likely safety requirement. Circling in a dark hole is not a smart idea.
5. Visuals move more tin; assuming competence and lack of GA's.
6. A visual circuit is commenced at a height = to or > circuit height, therefore higher than circling.
Are we in agreement?
1. A competent pilot should be able to make a visual approach in daytime without glideslope guidance.
2. There'll be very very few runways serving commercial jet traffic that do not have glideslope guidance.
3. Visuals at night are not a problem., but certainly safer with glideslope guidance; and a mandatory requirement by many operators.
4. ergo; circling a commercial jet at low height is safer with glideslope guidance due to the much shortened finals, and at night is certainly a likely safety requirement. Circling in a dark hole is not a smart idea.
5. Visuals move more tin; assuming competence and lack of GA's.
6. A visual circuit is commenced at a height = to or > circuit height, therefore higher than circling.
Are we in agreement?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few posters mentioned training earlier. Here in the US, part of your checkride for a type rating will include a viaual approach with no flaps and no vertical guidance (electronic or visual).
On my very first jet, I had to demonstrate to the check airman that I was able to do a visual approach without any vertical guidance. As it was a revenue flight, flaps were permitted 😊
On my most recent jet, I was required to demonstrate an approach with no automation (AP, FD, AT). Are EASA training requirements not similar?
On my very first jet, I had to demonstrate to the check airman that I was able to do a visual approach without any vertical guidance. As it was a revenue flight, flaps were permitted 😊
On my most recent jet, I was required to demonstrate an approach with no automation (AP, FD, AT). Are EASA training requirements not similar?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 80's UK CAA base training check had to include a non-VASI approach and 3 night landings. Under JAR I think both were removed. Others, e.g. Base trainers, will confirm or correct. Under RLD rules, 80's, on live a/c, I had to do all engine circuits, low level circuit, engine out circuit, no guidance circuit. Night was sim. EASA? Again we ask a base trainer.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what they call it.
It has more waivers to criteria than Carter has little pills.
I recall one time we were still IMC at MDA for 13L. We did the missed approach and they switched to the ILS 13L.
Why no ILS for 13R?
It has more waivers to criteria than Carter has little pills.I recall one time we were still IMC at MDA for 13L. We did the missed approach and they switched to the ILS 13L.
Why no ILS for 13R?
How do they run ILSs to the 13s with LGA traffic? I’d think it pretty difficult. Yes, I think there’s approaches to LGA 13; but then EWR and TEB are in the way.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-- offtopic disclaimer -- (sry RAT5)
if the NY tracon switches JFK to ILS 13L it's really bad for them. LGA goes to 13 operation too and limits volume of EWR/LGA/TEB massively. mostly LGA/TEB i think.
couple of days ago operating JFK13L they switched JFK to 22R single runway ops to get the delays/holding for TEB/LGA/EWR down. JFK ground was not amused and said the tracon calls it "delay balancing"
regarding ILS13R: the curve onto the ils13L is already very tight with other airspace and in avoiding manhattan skyscrapers by a comfortable margin.
at the give distance for joining the ils you can't design the approach above 3000 and even if you could: LGA incoming passes at 4000 and makes a left 270 onto ILS13 there.
i guess you could run an RNP transition onto an ILS for 13R at 1500ft or even just the existing RNP13R if the minimums are above 500 but to get that approved is another story.
also ILS13L is really rare and the 13R glideslope would be even further towards the city.
maybe underfire could tell us how much of a nightmare this would be
if the NY tracon switches JFK to ILS 13L it's really bad for them. LGA goes to 13 operation too and limits volume of EWR/LGA/TEB massively. mostly LGA/TEB i think.
couple of days ago operating JFK13L they switched JFK to 22R single runway ops to get the delays/holding for TEB/LGA/EWR down. JFK ground was not amused and said the tracon calls it "delay balancing"
regarding ILS13R: the curve onto the ils13L is already very tight with other airspace and in avoiding manhattan skyscrapers by a comfortable margin.
at the give distance for joining the ils you can't design the approach above 3000 and even if you could: LGA incoming passes at 4000 and makes a left 270 onto ILS13 there.
i guess you could run an RNP transition onto an ILS for 13R at 1500ft or even just the existing RNP13R if the minimums are above 500 but to get that approved is another story.
also ILS13L is really rare and the 13R glideslope would be even further towards the city.
maybe underfire could tell us how much of a nightmare this would be
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They had to switch LGA to 13. I don't think they worry so much about TEB. On another dark and stormy night we missed in an L10 on the ILS 13 at LGA and they slam-dunk us onto the JFK 13L. Got set up and had a G/S flag. The G/S was OTS but they didn't tell us. Learned later it was on the ATIS, which we didn't have time to check. It all worked out fine but it was breaking links in the chain.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hop,
There really arent many procedures for 13R or 13L. I dont see that 13R has an ILS. Looking at the GPS for 13R/13L that would probably be the path for the RNP AR procedure? (the Parkway visual approach looks about the same) There are RNP procedures for other runway ends except 13L/R...
Getting the minimum down to 500 from 800 may be difficult. RNP 0.1 may help, but dont know the controlling obstacle...RNAV RNP to visual?
RNP to ILS, or even GLS, I dont see the FAA doing those anytime soon. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...PtoLPVRecs.pdf
There really arent many procedures for 13R or 13L. I dont see that 13R has an ILS. Looking at the GPS for 13R/13L that would probably be the path for the RNP AR procedure? (the Parkway visual approach looks about the same) There are RNP procedures for other runway ends except 13L/R...
Getting the minimum down to 500 from 800 may be difficult. RNP 0.1 may help, but dont know the controlling obstacle...RNAV RNP to visual?
RNP to ILS, or even GLS, I dont see the FAA doing those anytime soon. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...PtoLPVRecs.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@underfire
the RNP to 13L/R already exists after being tested as RNAV Visual 13L by JetBlue extensively.
(http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/oswg/kjfk...0rwy%2013l.pdf - since end of testing NOTAMed out of service)
this honeywell pdf is one of the only documents describing the procedure on page 23:
https://www.mygdc.com/assets/public_..._Conf_2013.pdf
RNP 0.3 with DA of 519' though i ofc can't be sure this is the approved version.
what i am sure of is that as of 2017 not only jetblue but also delta, american airlines and cathay pacific is using the RNP to 13L. (jetblue aircraft don't even have to request it, they are told to expect it on initial contact with the tracon. the other airlines not all aircraft request it but a reasonable percentage)
nonetheless you are of course correct 13R has no ILS and no appropriate approach lights.
just wanted to line out the reasons why there is no ILS to 13R by explaining what would be necessary
the RNP to 13L/R already exists after being tested as RNAV Visual 13L by JetBlue extensively.
(http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/oswg/kjfk...0rwy%2013l.pdf - since end of testing NOTAMed out of service)
this honeywell pdf is one of the only documents describing the procedure on page 23:
https://www.mygdc.com/assets/public_..._Conf_2013.pdf
RNP 0.3 with DA of 519' though i ofc can't be sure this is the approved version.
what i am sure of is that as of 2017 not only jetblue but also delta, american airlines and cathay pacific is using the RNP to 13L. (jetblue aircraft don't even have to request it, they are told to expect it on initial contact with the tracon. the other airlines not all aircraft request it but a reasonable percentage)
nonetheless you are of course correct 13R has no ILS and no appropriate approach lights.
just wanted to line out the reasons why there is no ILS to 13R by explaining what would be necessary
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the plates, I just looked at the public procedures.
I really dont see anything unusual that this could not be published as public, especially if many airlines are already using it. With a single turn to final, it could simply be RNP, not RNP-AR...
One thing that would really help, would be speed restrictions on the waypoints to keep the RNP traffic moving, rather than going to idle descent, and potentially being a roadblock.
Not clear why the FAA does this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8IvorFvWo
I really dont see anything unusual that this could not be published as public, especially if many airlines are already using it. With a single turn to final, it could simply be RNP, not RNP-AR...
One thing that would really help, would be speed restrictions on the waypoints to keep the RNP traffic moving, rather than going to idle descent, and potentially being a roadblock.
Not clear why the FAA does this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8IvorFvWo
Last edited by underfire; 15th Oct 2017 at 17:09.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the Jetblue RNP AR to 13L is that the DA occurs while still in an RF leg. That is not permitted for a public procedure. Jetblue obtained a special authorization waiver.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
back to post #11
In the FAA world, there is nothing in the operational rules for NOTAMS that even mentions inoperative PAPI/VASI lighting, even for snow obstruction.
These are the ICAO rules.
5.3.5 Visual approach slope indicator systems
Application
5.3.5.1 A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway whether or not the runway is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist:
a) the runway is used by turbojet or other aeroplanes with similar approach guidance requirements;
b) the pilot of any type of aeroplane may have difficulty in judging the approach due to:
.....1) inadequate visual guidance such as is experienced during an approach over water or featureless terrain by day or in the absence of sufficient extraneous lights in the approach area by night, or
.....2) misleading information such as is produced by deceptive surrounding terrain or runway slopes;
c) the presence of objectsin the approach area may involve serious hazard if an aeroplane descends below the normal approach path, particularly if there are no non-visual or other visual aids to give warning of such objects;
d) physical conditions at either end of the runway present a serious hazard in the event of an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway; and
e) terrain or prevalent meteorological conditions are such that the aeroplane may be subjected to unusual turbulence during approach.
Looking at the above, there are the determinations when an indicator is required. IF a PAPI is required, and non-op, it will be covered in a NOTAM.
As you noted, there are local exceptions, but there are rules for when it is required, and other considerations. If the determination is that it is not required, then inop doesnt matter.
As you noted, you brought up Straya rules, which show night ops need electronic or visual slope guidance...
Order 82.5
5 Obligations in relation to aerodromes
5.1 An operator must conduct operations in accordance with regulation 92A.
5.2 An operator must ensure that night operations are only conducted from an aerodrome for which there is:
............(a) a published instrument approach procedure; and
............(b) a serviceable and available navigation aid; and
............(c) obstruction lighting where necessary.
Note A navigation aid includes GNSS.
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic OR visual approach slope guidance.
5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.
emphasis added
Given that this says 'or', you can have the ILS with or without PAPI/VASI, and if there is no ILS, the PAPI/VASI must be op. You provided a conditional approval for your airline from CASA on the lighting inop, but that approval is just for you.
EDIT:
Thoughts:
There are plenty of instances worldwide, when there is a temporary displaced threshold, where there is no PAPI/VASI lighting...the NOTAMS provide the guidance for the requirements.
There are many plates which state that glideslope is not coincident with PAPI/VASI.....
In the FAA world, there is nothing in the operational rules for NOTAMS that even mentions inoperative PAPI/VASI lighting, even for snow obstruction.
These are the ICAO rules.
5.3.5 Visual approach slope indicator systems
Application
5.3.5.1 A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway whether or not the runway is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist:
a) the runway is used by turbojet or other aeroplanes with similar approach guidance requirements;
b) the pilot of any type of aeroplane may have difficulty in judging the approach due to:
.....1) inadequate visual guidance such as is experienced during an approach over water or featureless terrain by day or in the absence of sufficient extraneous lights in the approach area by night, or
.....2) misleading information such as is produced by deceptive surrounding terrain or runway slopes;
c) the presence of objectsin the approach area may involve serious hazard if an aeroplane descends below the normal approach path, particularly if there are no non-visual or other visual aids to give warning of such objects;
d) physical conditions at either end of the runway present a serious hazard in the event of an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway; and
e) terrain or prevalent meteorological conditions are such that the aeroplane may be subjected to unusual turbulence during approach.
Looking at the above, there are the determinations when an indicator is required. IF a PAPI is required, and non-op, it will be covered in a NOTAM.
As you noted, there are local exceptions, but there are rules for when it is required, and other considerations. If the determination is that it is not required, then inop doesnt matter.
As you noted, you brought up Straya rules, which show night ops need electronic or visual slope guidance...
Order 82.5
5 Obligations in relation to aerodromes
5.1 An operator must conduct operations in accordance with regulation 92A.
5.2 An operator must ensure that night operations are only conducted from an aerodrome for which there is:
............(a) a published instrument approach procedure; and
............(b) a serviceable and available navigation aid; and
............(c) obstruction lighting where necessary.
Note A navigation aid includes GNSS.
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic OR visual approach slope guidance.
5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.
emphasis added
Given that this says 'or', you can have the ILS with or without PAPI/VASI, and if there is no ILS, the PAPI/VASI must be op. You provided a conditional approval for your airline from CASA on the lighting inop, but that approval is just for you.
EDIT:
Thoughts:
There are plenty of instances worldwide, when there is a temporary displaced threshold, where there is no PAPI/VASI lighting...the NOTAMS provide the guidance for the requirements.
There are many plates which state that glideslope is not coincident with PAPI/VASI.....
Last edited by underfire; 16th Oct 2017 at 15:46.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the Jetblue RNP AR to 13L is that the DA occurs while still in an RF leg.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic OR visual approach slope guidance.
That would suggest that following an NPA, where there is no electronic guidance to touchdown, the PAPI's must be working for use at MDA. N'est ce pas?
That would suggest that following an NPA, where there is no electronic guidance to touchdown, the PAPI's must be working for use at MDA. N'est ce pas?