Steep Glidesopes
 

Hi guys,

I understand that the London City airport has a 5.5 degree glideslope. Are there any other airports that have such a steep glideslope?

Thank you.

Sion - LSGS
But only an IGS approach

Tromsø (Icao ENTC) has 4 degrees GS both directions due to high mountains surrounding in all directions.

(misread the LCY to be 3.5 - sorry)

Chambéry (LFLB) is around 4.5˚ I think, Innsbruck (LOWI) 4.0˚, Lugano (LSZA) 6.65˚.......

PADQ Kodiak, Alaska is 2.05. It's not the G/S that's steep - it's the mountains at the other end.

Whats that place where you come down the mountainside and the beach is at the other end of the runway, St. Barts or something . . .?

Also Al Benga was interesting, especially downwind.

and . . Courcheval .? if the appr isn`t steep then the runway is . . .interesting.

Milas bodrum 3.5 and 3.8 if i recall corectly.
Napoli 3.33 and 3.5.

LFML 4.0 deg

Brieve France ... can't remember the angle though .. and too far away to care :-)

The only one I have flown regularly (B737 and B757) is Chambery 18 which is 4.6 deg.. very interesting.. on the 757 you have to be fully configured to land and back at Vapp before intercepting the glideslope because if you ain't you won't be able to slow down so it's a go-around... combined with the fact that there is no escape to the south cos there are rocks in the way .... go-around involves an 80 degree left then 260 degree right turn to escape to the north... straight in approach or circling.. you don't know which one you'll be doing til localiser intercept... fairly short runway.. VFR fixed-wing and rotary traffic all over the place... it's an interesting day out.

Steep approach.
 

Well, Akureyri (BIAK) in Iceland is quite interresting too.

ILS Rwy 01 is 5.0 degrees and flown within reach of mountains on both sides, and the LOC is offset by 2.5 degrees.

The go-around is even more interesting:
Climb straight ahead to 2.0 DME IAL, Turn left to track 358 degrees from OE (L) to HL (L) and join HL/AJ (NDB) Holding. If unable to reach 6000 feet at HL continue on 358 degrees from HL and intercept AKI VOR Radial 344 outbound. Passing 5000 feet turn right direct AR NDB and join HL/AJ Hold at 6000 feet.

You can just imagine the chaos in a speedy plane with one ILS/DME, Three Locators/NDB and one VOR set up and with a hold alternating between two NDB's. Better be sure what you're doing if the **** hit's the fan.

Charts Here: http://caa.is/media/PDF/AD_2_BIAR.pdf

CMF...
 

Chambery is actually 4.46 degrees slope, so it doesn't quite count as a steep approach (>4.5 degrees under EU Ops) but it does present many challenges. On a gin clear day though the circle to land 36 is a delight to fly from the RHS!

Steepest approaches?
 

The Dash 7 was the only FAR25 transport category aircraft (AFAIK) certificated for steep approaches up to 7.5 degrees, such as the MLS approach at Vail, Colorado (which was actually 8 degrees).

The Transport Canada certification criteria for steep approach approval were much tougher than the later ICAO standards , which were watered down. For instance, to certify for a 7.5 degree approach slope DHC was required to demonstrate a capture of the G/S from 2 degrees above the 7.5 degree slope, i.e. 9.5 degrees, with One Engine Inoperative!

Oh, and, by the way, the Dash 7 was eventually approved for the 7.5 degree slope with a 10 knot tailwind, at airfield elevations up to at least 10,000' ASL!

Here is an interesting link which tells the airport side of the story:

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields: Northwestern Colorado

twochai, re “The Dash 7 was the only FAR25 transport”; yes, but not quite.
AFAIR the certification standard for the Dash 7 (and similar aircraft) was a special condition, ‘STOL category’, which may have originated in Canada. FAR 25 may still not have a specific para.
Also, the airlines flying into Aspen, Vail, etc, operated to FAR 135.
The STOL certification category was developed into to certification Working Paper (705?), with Canada, and this was used as the basis of the UK CAA certification for the Dash 7 at LCY, and thence the BAe 146. This requirement was further developed and incorporated into JAR 25 and then CS 25.

Steep approaches to airports differ from those approaching a runway. The latter requires a full steep approach certification for the aircraft – straight in landing, whereas an approach to an airport can be steep (>4.5 deg), but is then followed by a ‘normal’ landing (<4.5 deg); this is often a circle to land procedure, e.g. old Aspen procedure.

IIRC the original approach to Lugano (LSZA) was also a hybrid. A steep approach would be flown into the valley with a GS origin positioned in the lake short of the runway; at DH the descent rate would be reduced to complete a relatively normal landing straight ahead.

Dwshimoda.. I stand corrected.. thank you... it's still an interesting day out !

PEI-3721:

Taking your comments in order:

Correct, but many aircraft have 'special conditions' applied to certificate unusual or unique features under FAR25. Nothing unusual there.

My recollection is that they operated under the short lived 'FAR135-II' regs, which were basically identical to, and eventual merged with FAR121.

All correct, I believe. The unique thing about the Dash 7's STOL operation was that it assumed a continued approach and landing with OEI. If I'm not mistaken, I believe aircraft operating to the LCY type of approval must have all engines operating at the start of the procedure?

Min & Max slope on Jet aircraft
 

The CFIT manual recommends (for jet aircraft) a minimum angle of 3 degrees and a maximum of 3.7 degrees. 3 deg is a gradient of 318 ft per NM and 3.7 deg is a gradient of 392 ft per NM. To operate a jet outside of those limits could give you a bad headache.

And the Space Shuttle. I think it flew a 20º glide, if I'm correct.