PAPI Categories

[cf6-80c2b5f]

Does anyone know if there is any published information at airports regarding the PAPI placement based on eye-to-wheel height (EWH)? For instance, if I am doing an approach to EHAM, I am pretty sure that all runways with PAPI's have been set for the 45' EWH for my 747, so I can fly it with two reds and two whites; but how do I know this for other less frequented airports? Is there any place on a chart that has this information?

Thanks!

[ft]

Check the approach lights section in the AIP. The MEHT should be specified. Not at all certain it always is though.

[cf6-80c2b5f]

Does the Minimum Eye Height refer to the ILS Glide Slope or the PAPI? I'm not sure the two are required to be harmonized.

[ft]

You'll find it under the VASI column. The AIP has no way of specifying the distance from the GP antenna of the aircraft to the eyes of the pilot. :)

They are supposed to be harmonized when they co-exist. I know of one example where they aren't, for very specific reasons, but haven't really been able to establish any regulatory support for that particular case.

[compressor stall]

Some airports seem to publish the meht, some don't.

By my calculations, where they do, for every foot difference between your eye height and that of the papi, you will land 7 meters long.

[Capn Bloggs]

They are supposed to be harmonized when they co-exist. I know of one example where they aren't, for very specific reasons, but haven't really been able to establish any regulatory support for that particular case.
Every new PAPI in Oz is not harmonised with the ILS (meaning the ILS TCH is different to the MEHT), because they are "eye-aligned" for long-bodied/large aircraft. When on the ILS GS, the pilots should therefore see two whites and two reds on the PAPI. For example, GS TCH is 50ft, PAPI MEHT 64ft. YSSY (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/FAC_YSSY_17-Nov-2011.pdf)

If you are in a littly where there's not much difference between eyes and GS aerial, when on the GS, you may/will see less white and more pink/red because your eyes are below the PAPI path.

Some airports seem to publish the meht, some don't.
Every Oz medium/long runway that has a PAPI has published the MEHT.

[compressor stall]

Yes, thats what I meant to write. Edited accordingly. Thanks.

Flicking thru Jeppview PAC Basin, many countries outside oz don't publish the meht.

[cf6-80c2b5f]

You beat me to it. I can't seem to find any MEHT in the U.S. AIP either.

[Capn Bloggs]

Good to see the Colonials leading from the front! :ok:

[ft]

Every new PAPI in Oz is not harmonised with the ILS (meaning the ILS TCH is different to the MEHT), because they are "eye-aligned" for long-bodied/large aircraft.

Working with the b****y things, that's what 'harmonized' means to me. Rereading I see it's not what the poster I was answering meant though, so thanks for bridging the gap! :ok:

[Sir George Cayley]

There's a list of EWH etc for a wide variety of a/c types in an ICAO book. I can't remember the exact reference buts its something like the Airport Design Manual.

SGC

[G-SPOTs Lost]

think NetJets got some relief from factored distances at City after putting the case to the CAA. They were configured for a 146 and they were obviously using business jets.

Might be wrong though.