JFK OFFSET ILS 22R approach and landinfpg

[waypoint5944]

Hi guys!
I need your help!:rolleyes:

Is there any pilot familiar with JFK?
I noticed that the localizer course of ILS 22R approach is offset 3 degrees with the runway centerline.

1. Can I deviate from the localizer center to align the runway centerline after "MATTR" which is the final approach fix if I have the runway in sight? (Still in IFR)

2. For the non-precision approach we can maneuver to align the runway centerline after FAF if we have the runway in sight. Can I do that for precision approach? Where can I find the reference(regulation) if it is not allowed?

3. What is the reason of that offset of localizer for ILS 22R?
Is there a hill? Can I find the reason from TERPS?

4. Was there any accident or event during the offset ILS approach and landing on 22R or anywhere else?

Thanks.

Student pilot always need a help.:)

[pattern_is_full]

As to WHY that ILS/LOC is offset 3 degrees: because the LOC antenna is not on the runway centerline, but along the side of the runway.

As to why the antenna is off the centerline - probably because the runway ends right at the edge of a swampy wildlife refuge, where construction (even of a small radio tower) and maintenance access is prohibited. Runway 4L does not have approach lights, because they would also impose on the wildlife refuge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/JamaicaBay.jpeg

If anything, the offset puts the approach CLOSER to the three charted obstructions (all to the north of the runway centerline).

There are trees in Idlewild Park under the approach to 22L that are classed as TERPS obstructions, but they are accomodated by the displaced threshold of 22R, and PANYNJ is proposing to add lights to make those trees more visible.

PANYNJ is also proposing other major revisions to 4L/22R - but those do NOT include changing the offset of the 22R ILS/LOC. (Big document - if you're interested) http://www.panynj.gov/about/pdf/JFK-Runway-4L-22R-EA.pdf

I don't see any evidence of accidents tied to the 22R approach, or 22R at all, outside of a few runway/taxiway excursions due to traction problems.

[moosp]

FWIW I was told that the JFK 22R offset was for noise considerations. Maybe.

My understanding, with no references other than an airlines internal documents, is that if you are cleared for the ILS you should fly the localiser and glideslope down to the minimums. If you are outside of half scale deflection then you are no longer within the parameters of a "pass" on a check. After minimum you can adjust for the runway.

If you ask for and get a visual approach then you can fly the extended centerline but for 22R that never happened for noise reasons.

The few times I landed on 22R there was a hooligan of a westerly wind blowing with low cloud down to about 600 ft so the runway appeared in the left side windshield. You had to get the drift right as you lined up, or it went very pear shaped very quickly.

Good character building in stuff :ooh:

[waypoint5944]

Thanks. :D

[BBK]

Waypoints

I've found that JFK tend to use 22L for landing with 22R for departures. Still an offset of course.

[BOEINGSST]

What does the regulation (FAR) state regarding when the aircraft may leave the FAC to begin to align with the runway. At which point on the approach can the pilot legally adjust the flight path to set up a safe landing?

Outside the FAF?
Only after passing the FAF?
Only at the MAP?
Anytime after the runway is in sight?
Anytime after a landing clearance has been issued?
Anytime including prior to a landing clearance?
Only if a Visual Approach has been issued?

The 7110.65 par 4-8-1 states that .....instrument approach clearances are issued on the basis that, if visual contact with the ground is made before the approach is completed, the entire approach procedure will be followed unless the pilot receives approval for a contact approach, is cleared for a visual approach, or cancels their IFR flight plan.

Is there any contradiction here regarding what ATC expects and what the pilot expects (and needs) to accomplish? :ugh:

[framer]

Not really. If you can safely manoeuvre from an overcast at minima to a landing then you can do the same on a gin clear day. It's probably good for you seeing as now days we do so little " manoeuvring " .

[AtoBsafely]

Boeingst,

There is no contradiction. The visual segment of an instrument approach is still part of the approach. Deviating from the instrument path to align with the runway is expected after the FAF and before the MAP.

A contact approach is a different animal, and is very useful in the right circumstances. Not busy JFK.