YSCB RWY 17 Vor approach ???

[oxi]

Can anyone enlighten me as we have just fitted new nav gear to the aircraft, whilst carrying out the 17 VOR approach into Canberra the CDI was half scale left through most of the final approach phase (from about 5 mile out)

If the CDI was lined up on the radial I would have been about half mile to the left of the approach, thus putting me right over the smaller of the two hills to the north of the feild, the VOR station is left of the 17 rwy but I would have not thought not that far to show such a indication.

Have any of the regulars noticed something similar?

[captain marvellous]

Your CDI was showing a deflection because you were off course.

Runway 17 is aligned 168 degrees magnetic - see here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/publications/current/dap/SCBAD01-101.PDF).

The VOR is (slightly) to the east of the extended runway centreline - see here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/publications/current/dap/SCBAD01-101.PDF).

The inbound course on the VOR/DME approach is 170 degrees - see here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/publications/current/dap/SCBVO01-101.PDF).

These factors in combination mean that the final approach track of the VOR/DME approach will be to the east of the extended runway centreline until you are a little way south of the VOR/DME ground station - ie well beyond the missed approach point.

If the CDI was lined up on the radial I would have been about half mile to the left of the approach...What "approach"? Are you refering to being visually aligned with the runway centreline?

Although the CB RWY 17 VOR/DME approach meets the requirements of a "runway approach", it is not precisely aligned with the extended runway centreline. It's not a localizer.

Draw a picture....

[OzExpat]

it is not precisely aligned with the extended runway centreline. It's not a localizer.
And not all localizers are aligned with the runway centreline either.

[Icarus2001]

OXI do you hold a Command Instrument Rating?

[swh]

Ozexpat ...whats the limit these days ... 3 degress off C/L to be called a LLZ ?

:rolleyes:

[captain marvellous]

OzExpat:And not all localizers are aligned with the runway centreline either.Agreed.

I originally included a similar statement in my earlier post, but removed it to try to avoid confusing the lad anymore than he is already.

But yes - a fair call.

[OzExpat]

At the riskof taking this thread off-topic...
3 degress off C/L to be called a LLZ ?
A LLZ is a LLZ, regardless of the offset from the centreline. If you're asking about the "alignment" requirements, there are several several ways of achieving runway alignment for the purpose of a straight-in approach.

CM... yes, I agree that the lad/lass seems to be somewhat confused. I wanted him (her?) to stop thinking in terms of a runway-aligned approach being a centre-line alignment. There is a significant difference. of course, which most of us understand. I suspect that oxi needs to grasp the same idea.

There... think I narrowly managed to bring my post back on topic. :}

[oxi]

Yes, understand that runway aligned approach does not mean down the guts, as I don't have the plate on me at the moment can't go into too much detail but....

Was visual, and was curious that the inbound course wanted me to be over the smaller of the two hills to the north, as opposed to a path between the two, with the mapt point at 3.5 dme if I rember correctily.

Sorry I guess my second paragraph at he start is a little poorly worded.

[The Messiah]

Yes mate lots of approaches take you over small hills, operative word being 'over'.

Thats what 'not below' altitudes are there for.