Ils @ Bhx

[sAx_R54]

Is there something wrong with ILS at BHX? Approaching BHX on flight from MBJ this morning, pilot flew missed approach to to re-orientate the aircraft into the correct position for finals, having realised the IAF was wrong. At approx 2000ft with low cloud cover, can an approach be attempted if the ILS is not correctly configured?

No media interest here, just very curious (and nervous) SLF!

sAx

[Chesty Morgan]

I wouldn't worry. I doubt the IAF was wrong or we'd all notice it. Sounds like a bit of an excuse for something else to be perfectly honest.

There are warnings available to ATC if there is something wrong with the ILS. If it's not working as expected we'll be told about it and there are other, different, types of approaches available to us, all perfectly safe. We don't always use an ILS.

[sAx_R54]

Thanks for your response. As I understand it, BHX Tower required pilot to make an extremely tight turn, with an eyebrow raising descent to match to get onto the GS! Pilot sensibly chose the correct option.

sAx

[Chesty Morgan]

These things do occasionally happen. Maybe we get shorter vectors than we expect or we just can't get the height off quickly enough and will sometimes end up with us being in a less than optimum position. As you quite rightly point out the pilot decided to start again which is the best option.

[tom775257]

BHX is bad for arrivals onto RWY33. Basically London control often spit you out very high for a straight in approach with a very unhelpful 'descend FL80, be level Honiley' so if you don't know the score and aren't expecting it, you drift down towards BHX, when you contact approach at BHX say something like 'straight in approach ILS 33 number 2, 30 track miles' and you are at FL150 (too high!).

The upshot is, if you want to fly into BHX RWY 33, once clear of london control, often it is dive dive dive!! They seem to give the unwary an orbit or delaying vectors, of course if you try and make it and cock up, you Go around. If you are smart, ask for delaying vectors in good time to get the height off. There is no reason to waste all the fuel on a go around (that I can think of), if delaying vectors will do the job to gently (in idle thrust) get the height off! Tell them what you want not the other way.

I have heard many go arounds at BHX due people getting hot and high on a straight in ILS and continuing whilst being asked by approach 'are the track miles sufficient'.

A pilot point of view, I hope you can see through the jargon to get the meaning, I think you can, you seem to have a good understanding of the basics.

To me it sounds like your pilots got hot and high.

[sAx_R54]

tom775257

Many thanks for your response. One further question if I may. We approached BHX from the severn estuary towards the East of Birmingham, where I believe we were to make a landing to the south-eastern runway apron extension (rwy 33). Following the missed approach, we routed from the north-west to make a landing on rwy 15. Is the MAP for rwy 33 a re-vectoring for landing on rwy 15?

sAx

[tom775257]

Hi there,

The standard missed approach procedure off runway 33 is a strange procedure that takes you out and with a procedure turn back towards the BHX NDB beacon on the airfield, leading towards another approach runway 33. In reality every missed approach I have flown off runway 33 has been 'straight ahead 2500' then radar vectors for another approach for 33.

Obviously landing, you want a head wind whenever possible, so you have the minimum ground speed / rate of descent etc for your landing. However airfields often have preferential runways, at BHX 33 is this. You will often land at BHX on 33 with a mild tailwind.

The quickest way to get back to land after a missed approach off 33 (with the usual straight ahead 2500') would be a 'tear drop' back and land on 15 (think about the pattern in your head). Whilst not standard, if the airport is not busy, ATC allow it and the winds dont prevent landing on 15 (often aircraft are limited to a 10 kts tail wind component landing, sometimes 15 kts) this would be the quickest way back on the ground.

I am guessing preferential use of 33 was in use (ie winds favouring 15) therefore landing back 15 was a great plan. If the airfield is busy obviously this would be impossible.

[sAx_R54]

Perfect description of events from my standpoint. Thanks again.

sAx