PAPI [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

ITCZ

27th Feb 2008, 08:53

Some operators recommend that if flying a widebody then fly on 3W/1R because pilot eye-height is much higher than smaller aircraft. Your wheels would land short if flying 2W/2R. Hope this helps.
That is not right, Richatom.

The difference between flying 3W/1R and 2W/2R is maybe 7 feet difference in wheel clearance crossing the threshold.

From Jepp:
A one degree progressive incremental spread from the outermost to the innermost light unit about the standard approach angle provides the visual guidance...

...PAPI is a point source aid. Thus a non-standard approach will not significantly alter threshold crossing height; only the approach angle will change.

The way you fix a problem of 'wheels landing short' as you put it is not to fly a steeper angle to the same aim point... you move the aim point into the runway. Such as the ozzie airservices people are doing at dunnunda international ports in preparation for the A380.

BESTGLIDESPEED

27th Feb 2008, 09:17

Thx. Shore Guy.

The link makes all the difference.

According to it :

" Three-bar VASI installations provide two visual glide paths. The lower glide path is provided by the near and middle bars and is normally set at 3 degrees while the upper glide path, provided by the middle and far bars, is normally 1/4 degree higher. This higher glide path is intended for use only by high cockpit aircraft to provide a sufficient threshold crossing height. "

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap2/F0201003.gif
X

Therefore my memory wasn,t so bad.

Nevertheless...

This is stated ONLY for the VASIS,as for the PAPI I haven´t found anything about the different pilot visual reference from the 2W-2R.

Should we assume then that this is only an improving feature of the VASIS that the PAPI cannot offer ?

Because, I think I will NOT place my wheels or boogey on the same spot if I am landing on the same airport with the same PAPI with a B737, than with a B744. ( or is it ? ).

Thx Richatom for your reply too.

Couldn,t agree more.

( we´re getting somewhere here... )

EMIT

27th Feb 2008, 14:26

BGS,

Check the post above your latest reply.

There is a principle difference between VASIS and PAPI and that is that the VASIS glidepath is assembled from lights at two widely separated positions, whereas PAPI light are all at the same distance from threshold.

Using VASIS, your aimpoint essentially is in between the white unit and the red unit that follows the white one. Using the "upper VASIS bars" thus moves your aimpoint further down the runway than when using the "lower VASIS bars" and so increases threshold crossing height.

With PAPI, the aimpoint is right next to the PAPI unit, so using the steeper indication will only give you a very small increase in threshold height.

ICTZ stated it correctly: take out your calculator and check.
Placing PAPI 1500 ft beyond threshold, threshold crossing height of a 3 degree glidepath is 78 ft (sine of 3 degrees times 1500 ft).
There is a 1 degree difference in slope from outer to inner PAPI light, and with four lights there are three intervals, so one third degree difference from one light to the other. The next higher slope would be 3,33 degrees, giving a TCH of 87 ft.

The distance of the PAPI from threshold will be the most important factor in threshold crossing height. The nominal glideslope of the PAPI will be determined by the terrain profile, just like an ILS glideslope: normally 3 degrees, steeper if needed because of distant obstacles in the approach path.

hvogt

27th Feb 2008, 14:39

Hello BESTGLIDESPEED

According to ICAO Annex 14 (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%20XIV%20-%20Aerodromes/Vol.%201-%20Aerodrome%20Design%20and%20Operations,%20AMDT%207.pdf) variing pilot eye heights are an issue with VASIS but not with PAPI.

For VASIS the note after ICAO Annex 14 no 5.3.5.9 says:"If increased eye height at the threshold is required (to provide adequate wheel clearance), then the approaches may be flown with one or more fly-down lights visible."
For PAPI there is no parallel provision. In Annex 14 Figure 5-18 it just says:"Where a PAPI or APAPI is installed on a runway equipped with an ILS and/or MLS, the distance D1 [threshold to PAPI lights] shall be calculated to provide the optimum compatibility between the visual and nonvisual aids for the range of eye-to-antenna heights of the aeroplanes regularly using the runway. The distance shall be equal to that between the threshold and the effective origin of the ILS glide path or MLS minimum glide path, as appropriate, plus a correction factor for the variation of eye-to-antenna heights of the aeroplanes concerned."
I hope this will help you. Good luck

hvogt

Intruder

27th Feb 2008, 17:57

Varying eye height may "not be an issue" with PAPI according to ICAO, but with almost 10 years flying the 747 I can tell you that 3 white and 1 red is the PAPI picture we see on a normal approach.

Capn Bloggs

28th Feb 2008, 07:55

PAPI is a point-source. If you maintain a constant PAPI picture, you must be flying a constant descent angle. The aim point will be exactly the same regardless of whether you're flying 4 reds or 4 whites, or two reds and whites: where the PAPI globes "cross" the runway. Only the descent angle changes. For multi installations, if you hold one set constant, the others must be changing. There is no way to deliberately change the threshold crossing height unless you have a changing PAPI picture as you get closer to the runway. Not so with the T Vasi. A far better visual landing aid.

Intruder,
Varying eye height may "not be an issue" with PAPI according to ICAO, but with almost 10 years flying the 747 I can tell you that 3 white and 1 red is the PAPI picture we see on a normal approach.
What are you basing your approach on? The ILS glideslope?

Intruder

28th Feb 2008, 18:05

In general, yes.

BESTGLIDESPEED

28th Feb 2008, 21:40

Thx EMIT for the link.

Thx hvogt too for the answer.

Am I understanding right ?

Putting it simple :

VASIS will get the wheels of my a/c at the same dist. from GND as for a shorter a/c due to the different pos of the lights ALONG the long. axis of the RWY ( this is, creating PARALLEL glideslopes ). therefore, one g/s for the cockpit, and one for the wheels. Bringing them right on 50´HAT, just like a shorter fuselage would follow.

Whereas PAPI, due to its ACROSS pos. to the RWY´s long. axis, creates CONVERGENT, i.e., DIFFERENT DEGREEE G/S´ . Therefore, following 3W´s - 1 R will only bring the a/c in a steeper desc. but the wheels to a height equal to the lower g/s on the VASIS if followed.

Shouldn´t I be intersecting the whites and reds in my way down in order to follow the ILS down to 200´ ?

( And I thought this was gonna be quickly sorted out..... ):{

Thx you all for the patience.

Rgrds.

Capn Bloggs

29th Feb 2008, 04:29

Whereas PAPI, due to its ACROSS pos. to the RWY´s long. axis, creates CONVERGENT, i.e., DIFFERENT DEGREEE G/S´ . Therefore, following 3W´s - 1 R will only bring the a/c in a steeper desc. but the wheels to a height equal to the lower g/s on the VASIS if followed.

Yes.

Shouldn´t I be intersecting the whites and reds in my way down in order to follow the ILS down to 200´ ?

If the ILS and the PAPI are aligned and both at 3°, then you must be seeing 2 whites and two reds the whole way down the ILS, unless the glideslope antenna (on the aeroplane) is on a different vertical level to the cockpit, in which case there may be a slight difference (as Intruder alluded to). If the GP antenna is below the cockpit eg under the nose somewhere, the pilots will (may) see a very slightly steep indication on the PAPI which would get worse as the aircraft got closer to touchdown. If this is practically the case I don't know, never having flown a big, long jet (too much fuel in the fuel tanks for me...).

NZScion

29th Feb 2008, 07:32

In New Zealand, the PAPIs are set up to accomodate the largest aircraft using the runway. The exact specifcations are prescribed in NZCAA AC 139 beginning on page 97. (Link to document) (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/ac139-06_121-2_125-1_135-1.pdf)

For this reason, NZAA and NZCH (which handle nearly all of the heavies operating into or out of the country) are positioned to have a TCH of 73ft, which offers the heavies sufficient clearance from the fence and all other obstacles if they were to be flown with 2 red 2 white from the pilots perspective. These airports regularly handle aircraft of B747/A340 size.

Smaller airports have different TCHs. For example, NZDN, which normally handles aircraft up to B737/A320 size has the TCH set to 58 ft, while NZNP, which only normally has up to DH8C (and maybe AT72?) has the TCH set to 47 ft.

BESTGLIDESPEED

29th Feb 2008, 11:11

I think I got a "preliminary conclusion " ( susceptible of debating, of course ) :

Thank you NZScion for the link. It confirms the one sent by ShoreGuy ( I guess it is all ICAO´s )

For as to VASIS, it is clear that it DOES contemplate a solution for the higher-lower cockpits ref. pt. of view, and the theory of the PARALLEL glideslopes I was talking about before seems to be demonstrated in fig. 5-12 of such doc.

As for our topic, the PAPI, ( according to the same doc. ) it DOES seem to work ONLY for the type of aircrafts the aerodrome has decided is going to operate with.

The recommendation is to place the lights at a DISTANCE where the wheel clearance over the threshold of THE MOST DEMANDING A/C and MOST REGULARLY using the RWY is ensured.

Nevertheless, when this height is not met, then a "reduced wheel clearance is accepted".( table 5-2 on pg. 100 ).

Looking out for my A/C´s eye-to-wheel dist. ( 34´), I come up suddenly with another info I wasn´t looking for : I have a Minimum wheel clearance at the threshold!! and Guess what. It´s 20´ !!!

20´= 6 m.

Now take a look to the 5-2 table again, and there you got it; I find myself in the reduced wheel clr. height column 3 !

Therefore, airports who don´t consider a widebody as a regular traffic MAY NOT have placed the PAPI lights where they need it to ovfly the threshold at 50´, but, I guess we oughta think they have ALWAYS placed them in such position that AT LEAST the min. WCH is ensured.

CONCLUDING :

On a PAPI,

FLY THE 2W-2R glideslope no matter what a/c you´re coming in with, You have minnimum ( although sometimes reduced ) wheel clearance with a widebody.

Any rebates ?....:rolleyes:

( Man, come to think all these years I have been flying close to 50' HAT, and have thought all the calc´s. were done taking that into account, and I realize now that every time I make a visual, I might be crossing the thr. below half the dist. I thought I was at some smaller airports ).

Thanx all of you for the valuable help.

:D

Capn Bloggs

29th Feb 2008, 11:29

Man, come to think all these years I have been flying close to 50' HAT, and have thought all the calc´s. were done taking that into account, and I realize now that every time I make a visual, I might be crossing the thr. below half the dist. I thought I was at some smaller airports
That's right. But to help you, the AIP information for the airport you are operating in to should have the threshold crossing height of each PAPI for each runway printed on the aerodrome chart or elsewhere close by.

BESTGLIDESPEED

29th Feb 2008, 13:32

Thx capn.Blogger

I´ll check that every now and then from now on.

Rgrds.

roljoe

29th Feb 2008, 14:18

Hi,

Thank's for all and you Bestglidespeed...interesting debate and a real good occasion to review some basic...

In addition to all doc's already proposed I'd like to submit this one..which I consider really well made by the French authorities..

Ill try to find it in english..but no success..anyway the pictures are talking by themselves..

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/dossier/texteregle/PAPI_CHAP02_V3.pdf

Don't hesitate for any translation required..

rgds

safetypee

29th Feb 2008, 15:54

PAPI is a highly reliable and accurate aid below 200 ft. At lower altitudes you may not wish to use PAPI to establish the visual glidepath (long body aircraft, GS Ax position, or PAPI location), but it remains a useful aid for assessing the trend of the approach and detecting sudden changes in vertical position, i.e. windshear.

For general info and description, see pages 194/5, and 253-> in CAP 168. (www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=232)

Also pages 9 – 12 etc in CAP 637 Visual Aids Handbook. (www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=136)

TwinJock

2nd Jun 2008, 08:36

Interesting! I have always been told that VASIS are NOT to be used below 200' AGL, as they are inaccurate, but that PAPIS are accurate to touchdown! Is this a fallacy?

I am starting to doubt my own info!:eek:

safetypee

2nd Jun 2008, 12:34

Twin Jock, the mechanism of VASIS result in ‘diffuse’ light at low altitude whereby the red/white beams become pink; thus they are considered to be inaccurate below 200 ft.

PAPI is a projected light system using a lens to focus the red/white light beams. Also, there is a sharp transition between the colours so they are usable at much lower altitudes. Some of the limiting factors involve the narrowness of the individual beams and the angular difference between the box settings, but in theory PAPI can be used to touchdown.

A widespread confusion in the industry is the interchange of terms where PAPI is often called VASI or a PAPI/VASI installation.

OutOfRunWay

2nd Jun 2008, 13:20

although where exactly you touch down is dependant on your cockpit height and position relative to gear..

OORW

discountinvestigator

2nd Jun 2008, 15:31

From a hangar full of bits:
1. the PAPI and the recommended instrumented approach angle may not be aligned
2. FAA PAPI angles sideways spread, ICAO and CAA are not necessarily the same
3. the nominal touchdown point is not suitable for land and hold short operations in most cases when using a PAPI
4. The ILS and PAPI, even if both 3.00 degrees are not necessarily aligned to the same point
5. Please remember ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 statement about a requirement for a runway to be equipped with PAPI for all turbojet operations. If the runway does not have vertical light guidance, you should not be going there.

PM me if you need more
Cheers
Discount

TwinJock

2nd Jun 2008, 17:20

Thanks guys.

The B777 FCTM states that the use of a 2 bar VASI system is NOT recommended, as it provides a visual aiming point that results in the main landing gear touchdown at, or very near, the end of the runway threshold. The main gear height over the threshold with this system is 19' for the B777-300ER, and 20' and 22' for the B772 and LR respectively. Threshold to main gear touchdown with no flare is about 365' - not a huge safety margin.

The use on the other hand of the 3 bar VASI system, results in in an increased safety margin in respect to the threshold height, but may result in landing further down the runway. The main gear height over the threshold is about 70'. Although this is only 20' above the normal 50' TCH, it makes a large difference on the touchdown point. The threshold to main gear touchdown point with no flare in this instance is 1200'.

I presume that when using the 3 bar VASI, wind in another notch of autobrake - just in case!!!

RAT 5

10th Jun 2008, 14:29

1. Concerning the point about ICAO PAPI requirements & turbojets; it was the case in continental Europe that ILS G/S and PAPI's did not transmit at the same time. e.g. AMS. Is this still the case.

2. IMHO if both are transmitting the ILS G/S has priority. (Mark 1 eyeball even more so) However, I am constantly hearing F/O's saying they've been told to fly PAPI's when visual and ignore the G/S. This often causes a G/S 'fly down' about 300'agl. and then a big push and pull as a last minute dive is made to avoid a long landing having followed pAPI's. In IMC the A/P will fly the G/S. The G/S is flight checked more accurately than PAPI's, and monitored for accuracy. A misalignment of a PAPI is more likely than a G/S error.

Opinions?

PEI_3721

11th Jun 2008, 02:31

RAT 5, Re “A misalignment of a PAPI is more likely than a G/S error”.
Maybe, but great care is required with most assumptions.
With PAPI (sharp transition lights), depending on the ground installation/location of the PAPI-GS transmitter, there may come a point during the approach where the difference between the aircraft GS aerial and eye height will, for a zero GS error, result in an indication of a visual error.
Also, remember that at very low altitude the GS beam is parabolic – it may never actually touch the ground along the flight path over the runway (the reflected beam, off the ground surface in front of the transmitter, is at the side of the runway).
Furthermore depending on the aircraft’s autoflight system, the vertical flight path phases out the GS signal and may phase in rad alt / flight path / attitude until the flare; the aircraft may deviate from the GS.
Then there may be complexities with the relative beam widths of the GS and PAPI.
Often very little about standard systems are ‘standard’, but the compromise is good enough; in the case of PAPI it is a considerable improvement over VASI enabling it to be used at much lower altitudes consistent with low visibility operations.

RAT 5

11th Jun 2008, 11:34

PEI: Thank you for that insight. However, what, in your opinion, should be flown as target if there is a difference between PAPI & ILS G/S? Mark 1 eyeball will help greatly, but sadly many airlines these days do not teach or allow F/O's to fly approaches with no G/P guidance. At night it is certainly Capt's only. Dreadful state of affairs.

I have been to airfields on CAVOK days where the is only an NPA and very weak VASIS seen only very late in approach and on centreline. Rwy visible from 40nm slightly off C.L. Even with the VNAV box of tricks modern F/O's are not always capable of flying a visual G/P accurately and effciently with configuratioon/speed changes from 20nm out.

Because of this lack of training and exposure to visual approaches the one time it happened that we were overhead at 5000', due traffic. on a severe clear day and then cleared to land on the NPA Rwy, the PF was lost about what to do & how. Where have the piloting skills gone? Is it still the same as was amongst the Greek islands? Mark 1 eyeball approaches? In the B737-200 you had nothing unless there was a DME nearby. Now, with all this computer mappy VNAV guff you are spoon fed, but even then it is screwed up.

A37575

11th Jun 2008, 12:28

You should not really need a PAPI below 500 ft anyway!

So on a dark night visual approach you are saying the crew should ignore the light signals passing 500 ft? Interesting opinion especially as aircraft have been known to crash short of the runway despite being on a nominal three degrees slope at 500 ft. Black hole effect?

Sir George Cayley

11th Jun 2008, 21:02

Safetypee speak with strait tongue - I council him be made Chief!

Can't comment on vintage VASIS, but PAPIs is my thang:ok:

When a runway is equipped with an ILS Glide Path, the PAPIs should be aligned so that their points of origin are the same. If you look at the drawings in CAP168, you'll notice that the angle change depends upon ILS or not.

If you fly an aircraft equal to the design aircraft then 2W 2R is set for you. If your a/c is much smaller than the design a/c, the 2W 2R will see you pass over the threshold at more than a safe height. Have a look at the AIP entry and focus on the published MEHT.:D

If, by any chance, you are in an a/c bigger than the design a/c the 2W 2R could result in a sudden scraping sound just before anticipated touchdown.

In other words, pilots cannot apply a broad brush criteria to the number of lights seen on approach to optimise the point of touchdown - one has to know what design a/c was used to set the PAPI angle.:ok:

Also, when were they last flight checked? How does the airport deal with new obstacles sticking up into the 4 red zone?

For answers to these and other safety questions e-mail............

er? Your guess is as Goudot as mine:eek:

Sir George Cayley

12th Jun 2008, 18:37

To put the relationships into perspective, if it is of any interest:

For a typical ILS PAPI, you'll have three whites 0.25 deg above the nominal.

For a three degree PAPI glide path, you will have 3W/2R ten feet above the three degree GP when the GP height is at 120 feet.

Proportionality gives that when the PAPI GP is at 60 feet, it takes 5 feet above to get three white, and at 240 feet it takes 20 feet above.

Cheers,
/Fred

RAT 5

13th Jun 2008, 14:35

All recent posts all very good and very technical. Now simple question for us simple pilots about everyday simple operations.
It is common at major airports to fly ILS G/S down to about 800' with 2W
2R. Then about 500' staying on G/S gives 3R. Most F/O's pull up to fly the PAPI and the G/S goes 3/4 dot Hi.
I say fly the G/S. Some F/O's have been beaten into "fly the PAPI's."

Opinions and what do you do? Taking Mk.1 eyeball always into account.

PEI_3721

15th Jun 2008, 02:10

RAT 5, Re “what … should be flown as target if there is a difference between PAPI & ILS G/S?”
You seek an ideal solution from a complex situation. If the ILS and PAPI ground installations are well harmonised and the aircraft GS/eye height is small, then the height at which there is any significant difference might be so low as not to be of interest (see ft’s post). However, very few things in aviation are ideal or definable with accuracy; with any difference between the systems it is unlikely that you will know if this is due to the ground installation or the aircraft, a normal or abnormal occurrence.
If the ground installation is non-standard this should be notified on the airport chart, but even this is not foolproof – see the recent accident at Quito where the visual and GS flight paths differed for good reason, but were not identified to the crews; these are unusual circumstances.

Generally use the aid as dictated by your approach – GS for inst, PAPI for visual. In the situation described (visual) use a bit of both. The GS should be kept within half a dot – this avoids any error from visual distortion of PAPI at longer ranges / hot hazy days (light bends more than the GS); use all of your resources – altitude/range, runway position in the windshield.
At lower altitudes / close in, the approach flight path should be assured by 100ft (stabilised approach checks at 500/300ft) thus ensuring an accurate threshold crossing altitude. In poor weather, then PAPI has other values; irrespective of alignment, any quickly changing lights can alert the crew of any sudden change in vertical speed – windshear (vertical or horizontal).

Much of the above comes with experience; thus it is important to observe and note the many parameters which go into the judgement of the flightpath during an approach. Whether you are monitoring the PF or the autos – neither will be perfect, but they should be good enough – within specified limits (SOPs). Build up a mental library of approach paths and the items which define them, then when the GS and PAPI are both u/s you have something to use as approach ‘guidance’ even if this situation has not been practiced previously.

RAT 5

15th Jun 2008, 20:15

PEI:
With respect: Your answer may be enlightened and accurate, if confusing. I'm teaching low houred ab-initio jet pilots. They want a simple rule with which to start their career. Is it A or B? My answer, being a simple fella, is that if the G/S is flight checked and approved, and if that is what the autopilot will follow when IMC, so thus you believe and accept it, why not do the same when visual?
In my mind that is a simple answer to the question at 500', "what shall I do?" Unfortunately, but the time I've explained your theory we are either half way down the Rwy or in the approach lights. Excuse the flippancy, but young guys need quick simple answers.
And that's before I even begin to wonder about dual PAPI installatons which do not agree with each other..

PEI_3721

16th Jun 2008, 02:48

RAT 5, sorry if the elaborative answer did not meet your requirements. I belong to the ‘old school’ of training, which with the luxury of time and resource, aimed to teach the big picture, instil flexible thought, and lay the foundations of airmanship.
I sympathise with the training problems resulting from commercial constraints. The growing trend for simplicity and cost cutting has much to answer for, and unless the current training programs or operations can alleviate the training shortfalls, the simple dilemmas faced by your students will one day be opportunities for their accidents.
So forgive the minor rant over training – you, to days instructors, still have to cope.
Many safety problems appear to originate from lack of knowledge (historic or situation assessment) or the inability to associate this knowledge with a course of action in a situation (cognitive flexibility theory if you want the research). Some of the reasons (the principle reasons) for these shortfalls is oversimplification (time and resource constraint) and lack of variety when explaining situations – how to associate knowledge to situations other than in which it was taught – joined up thinking.

Now apply the issues above to the current discussion on PAPI. I would argue that while it’s safe to say ‘follow the PAPI’ for all visual approaches, this must be qualified by the potential problems (albeit small probability) of distortion, non alignment, or failure. Pilots must be taught that situations are not clear cut A or B; aviation involves complexity, quick and simple rarely exists, and often there is no one perfect solution so they have to be aware of alternative solutions and a flexible response.
I accept that A or B is satisfactory for the first lesson, but after that the subject must be developed and elaborated.

If you only have one lesson? Then the industry is in a very poor state.
Inexperienced pilots must be mentored by their Captains providing an expansion of knowledge during line operations. This is still feasible, but again commercial constraint and perhaps a greater risk, that of the new breed of Captains also lacking depth of training, really will begin to hurt the industry.
All this and it started with something simple as PAPI.

"what shall I do?" Where the aids don’t agree is an ideal situation for the student to learn about deciding themselves – ‘old school’ (needs some background knowledge). The training hints are:-
At longer range (before normal descent point) follow the GS. This can be associated with the need to be aware of safe altitudes during the approach, avoidance of black hole descent illusion, etc – debrief.
At closer range use the PAPI for visual approaches. However, if the GS / PAPI are still in error, follow the higher beam – safety first. If the error is not promulgated on the charts (giving a reasoned answer as to which one to follow), file a safety report because the beams should be close enough not to show such a disparity.

RAT 5

16th Jun 2008, 08:26

Hi PEI.
I too am of the old school and wish pilots were trained and capable of good airmanship thinking and capable a/c handling. Sadly there is too much trained monkey syndrom with everything written down. Flying seems more of memory test, learn by rote, rather than adapt and do what is best for the situation albeit in an SOP manner.
You discuss captains being mentors for the new guys: the fact is that in EU Loco's the mentoring captain may have only 3000hrs total & 4 years experience in one airline. He is a trained monkey passing on more nuts to the next generation.
Hence we need a simple answer to most questions. Many options are too confusing for some. Just look at the way FCOM's have been diluted. Only what a pilot needs to know. If he can't do anything about it then he doesn't need to know how it works. Land it and get it fixed.
Same with flight training. It's 100rs less to a frozen ATPL than it was 30 years ago. The next thing is an airline pilot's licence where most of the training will be in a simulator and not a Cherokee. It can be argued that you don't need to sail a dinghy to be a cruise liner captain, or drive a go-cart to be a trucker, but you can dilute training and the basics too much.

About the PAPI's, I still find it sad that it is considered by many to be a dodgy approach if there are no G/P aids. Whatever happened to Mk.1 eyeball. That works not matter what a/c you fly. It was a UK CAA requirement to fly non-PAPI approaches, day & night, to complete base training. I think that has gone and even the night requirement is not mandatory under JAR. Amazing!!