PAPI U/S. Consequences ?

[Estreller]

For a class C aircraft ( Airbus A 320 ) in Europe . A NDB procedure with the PAPI inop implies any limitation ? Is it legal to fly it ? EASA - OPS Failed or Downgraded Equipment table does not contains PAPI situation.

[RAT 5]

At minimums it is necessary to have the 'visual reference' in sight to continue to land. PAPI is not part of the visual reference, and any competent pilot, with the a/c stabilised and in trim, should be able to (probably disconnect the A/P) manually land the a/c on the correct point.

[underfire]

What does the plate say? Depending on the procedure, there may be certain instances where it must be operational.

https://i.imgur.com/DBPaO6f.jpg

[RAT 5]

That might be a local, French, requirement rather than an EASA one? And it applies to the Circle procedure not a straight in.

[FlightDetent]

That place is a bit peculiar. For the straight-in from the opposite side, it has an approach angle of 3,8 deg, displaced threshold to accomodate the profile above a ciritical obstacle that is 3,2 NM from the runway and stands 980 ft tall, dead centre on the final track. PAPI requirement fully justified at night.

But the answer to the original question is NO downgrade or requirements, in my books.

[galaxy flyer]

KBHM?.....

[FlightDetent]

According to my LIDO charts KBHM rwy 36 is daylight only, PAPI not installed and circle to land not authorized :) The obstacle at 1 NM / +600 ft explains nicely.

The above chart is LFMH.

[galaxy flyer]

Missed the AIP reference at the bottom.

[underfire]

Sorry, guess I should have included the whole chart...it is LFMH.

[Estreller]

Thank you for your answers ,Looking further ICAO Annex 14 vol 1 is providing the following information :

"5.3.5.1 A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway whether or not
the runway is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist:
a)
the runway is used by turbojet or other aeroplanes with similar approach guidance requirements;
b)
the pilot of any type of aeroplane may have difficulty in judging the approach due to:
1)
inadequate visual guidance such as is experienced during an approach over water or featureless
terrain by day or in the absence of sufficient extraneous lights in the approach area by night, or
2)
misleading information such as is produced by deceptive surrounding terrain or runway slopes;
c)
the presence of objects in the approach area may involve serious hazard if an aeroplane descends below the
normal approach path, particularly if there are no non-visual or other visual aids to give warning of such
objects;
d)
physical conditions at either end of the runway present a serious hazard in the event of an aeroplane
undershooting or overrunning the runway; and
e)
terrain or prevalent meteorological conditions are such that the aeroplane may be subjected to unusual
turbulence during approach."

But it doesn't say what happens if PAPI is inop .

[Estreller]

Actually is a kinda' challeging approach due to high terrain surroundings and steep angle :

[tescoapp]

Well with the zero to hero types that have never done an approach without PAPI as guidance.

I suspect the Consequences will be destabilised low level.

A snot o gram from flight safety about a deep or short landing.

And possible heavy landing check.

[Capn Bloggs]

Estreller, I was going to keep out of it but since you have quoted ICAO, in Australia, we are permitted (High Capacity ops) to operate to a runway without slope guidance (ie without GS or PAPI/TVASIS) for 7 days, provided the PIC has demonstrated proficiency in No-Slope landings within the last 9 months. If the landing is at night, that proficiency must have been demonstrated at night. We do it in the sim every cyclic.

Our rule is the basically the same as the ICAO one you quoted; our exemption is an Ops Spec from CASA.

[RAT 5]

Back in the day when pilots were pilots and pax were relaxed, or perhaps not sometimes, a UK CAA base check required a minimum of 6 circuits, 1 without slope guidance and 3 night landings. This BASIC requirement was removed; I know not why or when. Perhaps JAR in their infinite wisdom had some input. However it is just another example of dumbing down a basic piloting skill.
I was astonished to move to an airline and give TR sim instruction, on an EU XAA approved syllabus, where there was no Night session. As it had been removed as a base training requirement the first time a new pilot would land at night would be on a line flight. Hm??? I questioned this with HOT and a night session was introduced. I wondered at the competent oversight of the XAA and their thinking. The company, before it introduced VNAV approaches forbid no slope guidance approaches. Then, after VNAV, they allowed captains only if a VNAV approach was programmed, but not at night, and the runway beyond a minimum length and full width; i.e. no narrow runway ops.
Seems pilots no longer have the required quality Mk.1 eyeball to judge a 3 degree slope. I'd always thought that if the correct Performance triangle was in balance and the crash point fixed in the window there was a fighting chance you were on the correct slope. Has anything changed?

[tescoapp]

No RAT

My old out fit though about 6 months after I joined I did a visual onto the nearest end instead of the active as cleared by ATC.

They hadn't turned the PAPI's on or ILS.

The FO wasn't happy at all about continuing passed the stabilisation gate.

We did, I landed... submitted a report as the Fo wasn't happy, mucho discussions afterward even though there is nothing mentioned in the SOP's on the subject with fleet office types

FDR confirmed I was within limits for an ILS profile I was stabilised 500ft early so the noise died down.

But because of the noise it created I don't think I would do it again even though it was perfectly safe. The boss said he would have been happy with breaking into a circle round onto the active runway if it would happen again. I still did them but now get confirmation that the PAPI's are turned on before accepting the clearance. But to be honest they need 5-10mins to warm up to give a calibrated glideslope so turning them on 3 mins before arrival is just a ticking a box exercise.

Some of them have never done anything other than 3 deg approaches with papi even when they were doing there SEP phase of there training. After they have seen me doing a couple a few ask me how to do visuals. But the majority are really not interested. And the ones that think they can do them expertly usually end up with a longer finals than if we were on vectors and sub 160knts by about 6 miles thus making the whole exercise a bit pointless.

[compressor stall]

G'Day Bloggs. Have you got a reference for that? I was going to chime in before you with my understanding of the regs from many years ago that it was PAPI for RPT but not charter. Went to look it up before I made a fool of myself and now can't find it! Thanks

[Tu.114]

If you want to avoid the NDB09 and have sufficient weather, there´s another good option at SBZ.

A visual approach is normally gladly cleared by the approachers. The runway is usually very nicely visible already from far: a long grey stripe west of the city, right south of a light industrial area with several halls and large grain silos. I personally like to fly a bit north of the mountain range, turn into a sort of base between the points named SOF1 and SOF2 on the shown chart and then end up nicely established at about 6 to 7 miles. You will find the runway 09 sloping down noticeably and there is also steeply rising terrain just in front of the threshold (the airport is situated on a little plateau). The optics on the approach are a bit unusual consequently, and also the radar altimeter overreads by about 100 feet due to this. Also, there may be a little bit of turbulence on short final in moderate wind conditions.

Or, wind permitting, radar vectors for an ILS 27 are available at SBZ as well. They will usually guide you in from the north, do consider keeping the speed low on the right base so you do not overshoot the localizer to the south.

[aterpster]

Here is the entire chart, as well as the RNAV Rwy 36 that illustrates the terrain issues associated with Runway 36. When a note is attached to minimums, it becomes a conditional part of the minimums. If the PAPI for 36 is inoperative you cannot circle to Runway 36 from any of the IAPs for Runway 18 (there are also 3 RNAV IAPs to Rwy 18, all with the same conditional note.) No matter whether Ops Specs are involved, or not; this note applies to everyone when the Runway 36 PAPI is inoperative at night.

[Capn Bloggs]

Have you got a reference for that?
Here 'tis:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015C00131

Section 5.3.

[YPJT]

Also specified in MOS139 9.9.1.1
My understanding is that the requirement extends to both RPT and charter operations by jet aircraft.

However a few mining strips in WA are running on what appears to be a never ending exemption to the requirement.

If it goes down, I believe there is unwritten policy / ruling that allows an operator to continue to operate for up to 5 days whilst the system is reinstated.

[RAT 5]

Tescoapp: glad to hear there are still some old farts alive & well and practicing the dark arts. I'm glad I read your whole massive, because the opening gambit led me to believe you might be in total disagreement when in fact you seemed to be in severe agreement. Bravo.
Why your boss thinks a circle to land is an easier manoeuvre alludes me. I suspect one of two of my last CP's would have gone apoplectic because of 'the message' it would send to others. I did have that comment once, and decided with a heavy heart not to pursue what 'the message' was.
I was flying with an F/O who was PF into a severe clear area, as in the runway was visual from 50nm or more. The straight in ILS was u/s, the wind favoured the other end, and the ATIS said 'circle to land' from the VOR. It would say that because there is no IFR approach to the other end. We were the only traffic and there are no PAPI's on 'the other end'. The F/O briefed the circle approach with all the fine detail required and the use of autopilot, including the circling height of 600' with gear down etc. That was were I gave him 'the eye', and wondered why a perfectly good visual downwind was not a better choice. Answers; "ATIS says circling, I'm on the outside of the turn, there are no PAPI's, circling profile will put me in the correct place in glide slope." I commented that circling would put him, blindly onto a 2nm final with no PAPI and little time to correct. A visual circuit, time it if you feel you must, will give you a longer final to sort it out and stabilise. The following discussion was an education for both us; well a disappointment for me, and this within an airline who claims to have the highest training standards. There are times when 'the emperor has no clothes'.
I still lay some responsibility at the XAA's door with their low expectations for base training, and the airlines themselves. There are airlines that do not allow pilots to execute a typical base training circuit on the line. What is the point; I'm lost.

[galaxy flyer]

Not recommended for RPT, but at my old base we’d circle for a touch and go at mins, at night to a 7,000’ runway and never thought twice about it. An afternoon with strong winds and rain was a workout in the instructir’s right seat.

It did build confidence!

[Judd]

While for example the B737 FCTM displays a diagram of a visual circuit as distinct from a circle to land, as you say there are many airlines who disapprove of practicing a visual circuit during type rating training. For example, the Boeing (formerly Alteon) syllabus during type rating training does not include visual circuit training. That info from someone who recently completed their 737NG type rating in Australia.

Moreover from the very first simulator session, the accent is on full use of automation rather than give the student the opportunity to fly the 737 by hand without flight director or other automatic features to get the feel of his first jet.

Yet there is no doubt that repeated circuits and landings in the simulator manually flown with FD and AT off, gives new pilots more confidence in flying the aeroplane than staring fixedly at the PFD and MAP and fiddling around with the MCP while pressing autopilot buttons. Others are welcome to disagree, but in my job we see the immediate results in the simulator.

[RAT 5]

I think you are at crossed purposes. In EU land it is necessary to complete Base training after the LST to receive the type on licence. Most airlines, to save cost and build confidence, do an hour os so in the sim prior to live a/c circuits. My comment is that once this is done some airlines then discourage/forbid this profile to used on line with pax aboard.
When asked why not, one reply given was that,
"Base training circuit was a requirement for TQ and very specific. On the line it would be rare to fly a level timed circuit, but rather a self-judged descending CDA circuit, which was not trained and therefore liable to screw ups and costly GA's. Visual circuits will only be flown into an OM final which negated the benefit of a shortened visual circuit anyway. The benefit gained from the training required was not worth it."

OMG. So doing it the way we had always done it, by demonstration & practice on the line, was now deemed insufficient & inappropriate and unnecessary. The problem is evolutionary because with rapid commands there is no-one to demonstrate and coach. I retired a couple of years, after doing what I had done for 35 years, was banned. 2 years previously, & the last time I had the opportunity to arrive overhead at 4000' and fly a raw data Mk. 1 eyeball CDA to 2nm finals, the F/O had the gumption to ask "how did you do that?" & "why are we not doing it more and being taught how to do it?" Good lad, and then it was banned.

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

Excuse me gents, but I don’t quite understand. What exactly is banned these days? Visuals? No PAPI landings?

I have flown (and still fly) for several large jets operators around the world and have never seen any restriction w.r.t. to PAPI.

O.K., vast majority of runways I operate to have them these days, so no PAPI landing is rare. Still, haven’t seen any formal requirement for PAPI, or any restriction due to lack thereof...

[Bergerie1]

As a happily retired old fart who last flew a commercial aircraft back in 1995, I am absolutely amazed by the discussion here. A straight forward handflown circuit at night with no PAPIs or VASIs was a basic requirement.

A straight-in approach at night with no glideslope assistance was perhaps another matter but was still the norm at some fields. If in doubt a basic circuit made life easy AND safe.

I know all the automatics have made flying much safer and more efficient but surely the basics are still stick and rudder, regardless of the type you fly.

[Teevee]

Judd and Rat5, as an SLF I'd feel a lot safer with people up front with your skills than with the skills they are left with after training as you describe it. As an aside in the early days of Doncaster Sheffield in a clear bright sunny day I heard an arrival from Spain gleefully asking to do a visual to 02. He must have been at 4000 overhead and did what I assume was a CDA (sorry if I am wrong) and ended up beautifully on short final as you describe Rat5. Even for a non-pilot like me the skill and its application were things of beauty.

[aterpster]

Excuse me gents, but I don’t quite understand. What exactly is banned these days? Visuals? No PAPI landings?

I have flown (and still fly) for several large jets operators around the world and have never seen any restriction w.r.t. to PAPI.

O.K., vast majority of runways I operate to have them these days, so no PAPI landing is rare. Still, haven’t seen any formal requirement for PAPI, or any restriction due to lack thereof...

The subject of the thread is not about superior airmanship, or lack thereof, it is about a procedural note that the French aviation authority placed on the use of instrument approach procedures. The issue is obstacles penetrating prescribed visual segment slopes for Runway 36. If the PAPI is inop in the daytime, no problem. If the PAPI in inop at night, not even Sky King can see the obstacles sticking up into a normal approach path (3 degrees or so).

Increasingly, aviation authorities are restricting night IFR operations to runways with such visual segment penetrations as a matter of both safety and liability. The FAA is very restrictive in this regard since a Lear Jet hit some trees at night in the descent below MDA several years ago.

[Skyjob]

Resultant of the above French restriction, there are companies flying in its airspace which subsequently prohibit pilots flying night visual approaches. They enforce the most restrictive national rules within its operating theatre as their standard operating procedures = Safest?

[BARKINGMAD]

Possible workaround?

Does your FMS allow range rings from the runway threshold?

If NORMAL approach is 3 degrees, then appropriate rings with a target ALTITUDE of 320'/nm plus threshold elevation plus 50' should assist those otherwise uncomfortable with a purely visual approach to put the aircraft where it should be.

Before the howls of outrage I'm assuming you are by now VMC with runway lights in sight.

Rings less than 2nms from threshold are not needed as by then if you're not in the groove it's time for a G/A anyway (500' stabilised?) but if in the groove then leave the energy management as it is and get the job done?

But there are TCs out there who despise the use of such utilisation of the kit so be prepared to defend your corner.

[RAT 5]

There are those on B737NG'S, perhaps also AB's, who profess that if you have an FMC generated VNAV/LNAV approach the FD's will give good enough guidance to touchdown. I used to fly for operators that switched FD's off when visual from an NPA. I then had sim checks by TRE's from different operators who did not, as they believed it was not a Boeing SOP and believed that there was some guidance available. I'd always been taught that the A/P connect limit was 50' below DA unless coupled to a glide path. Therefore this applied to he whole AFDS, including FD's. That is not to say the FD's suddenly become inaccurate, but would be advisory only, in some operator's eyes.

[BARKINGMAD]

Rat, you misunderstand my point.

I'm assuming PF is looking out the window, enjoying the view, but using dist v alt to keep them out of the weeds.

Either logged into PFs brain would be the target distance/altitude figures and/or PM would be keeping track of them calling high/low as appropriate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believed the original query was a visual approach, possibly from a straight-in, without visual slope guidance beyond the runway lights' aspect cues.

The straight-in visual approach, for whatever reason, is rarely if ever practised and almost always never taught, unless part of an IF approach where the needles are used for vertical guidance though the visual criteria have been acquired.

Many current line dogs can perform a visual circuit or circling approach only because the company or aircraft FM gives appropriate range/timing/altitude numbers which will suffice if accurately achieved. But picture the panic on a night straight-in visual, using the needles for staying out of the weeds, when the needles disappear into the corners for whatever reason?

Hence the use of a modern FMS runway-range rings, kept me and my team in the groove on the frequent nights when LGW main runway was taken out of action and tired crew landings at 0400 GMT were in force without PAPIs nor an approved VNAV approach for runway 26R.

As long as the maths have been done and X-checked long before the panic starts.

Aaaah, halcyon days..........:)

[sheppey]

and/or PM would be keeping track of them calling high/low as appropriate.
There is nothing more irritating than a PM continually reading out a profile to satisfy his own nervousness under the mistaken impression the more you talk the safer it is. All under the guise of good CRM. If something looks dangerous then speak out by all means. But Fly-By-Mouth PM's, whether they are the captain or co-pilot, are a real pain in the arse. In a car they are called back seat drivers.

[tescoapp]

RAT through out the whole discussion I had a feeling none of the fleet types had ever done a circling approach in anger on a cold windy night with the fuel gauges ticking down and your alternate 50 mins away.

They did do the decent thing and include a circling approach in the next sim cycle.

But when I got there they hadn't taken into account the pan ops protected area and weren't teaching that you had to stay inside its limits.

They hadn't modified the stabilised approach criteria (hence they were getting way way to far away from the runway outside the protected area).

And blank looks and stumbling when this was pointed out on debrief as the reason why my wings weren't less than 5 deg bank at the gate. That point was then dropped and we moved swiftly on.

Anyway my present outfit has a much more realistic method of dealing with it. Any airport that your likely to get a circling approach is cat C, Captains approach if its a circling and even the slightest hint there is something to bang into then its a sim session to qualify. And in the airport brief the protected area is marked. And also the modification to the stabilisation gate criteria which is normally wings less than 5 deg bank by 200ft.

PAPI's are not a requirement as long as you get visual contact with the runway mins +500ft. If you come out the murk at mins and they are not on then its a GA .

Which to me is a more sensible clued up way of dealing with things. Not that I have had to do one in anger yet with them. Which as I have done more than enough of them in the past is more than fine by me.

If I never have to do one again outside the sim I won't be even remotely upset.

[aterpster]

PAPI's are not a requirement as long as you get visual contact with the runway mins +500ft.

Not even at LFMH Runway 36 at night?

[aterpster]

For you guys who want to set up an FMS 3.0 degree "roll-your-own" VPATH to LFMH Runway 36 note both the VDA and the PAPI are 3.8 degrees.

[pineteam]

There is nothing more irritating than a PM continually reading out a profile to satisfy his own nervousness under the mistaken impression the more you talk the safer it is. All under the guise of good CRM. If something looks dangerous then speak out by all means. But Fly-By-Mouth PM's, whether they are the captain or co-pilot, are a real pain in the arse. In a car they are called back seat drivers.

I hear you... So annoying! Like today at 400 feet AGL with the runway clearly in sight 2 whites/2reds, the FO called: "Glideslope!". It was like 1/3 of a dot deviation not even half a dot which in that case is a standard call out by Airbus but for God Sake just look outside bro. Also another thing who really grinds my gears, are the guys who call " 1000 to go" when they are PF cause I miss it. Well done buddy, now I won't call it anymore! Or the guys calling " Clear right side" every 10 seconds when I taxi the aircraft and I can clearly see ahead... Common sense at sea level...

Concerning the PAPI... Who needs that seriously?

[tescoapp]

If there is a local restriction in the pates of course you would have to obey that like any other restrictions.

If the plate says you need PAPI's then you have to have them.

[Rick777]

While for example the B737 FCTM displays a diagram of a visual circuit as distinct from a circle to land, as you say there are many airlines who disapprove of practicing a visual circuit during type rating training. For example, the Boeing (formerly Alteon) syllabus during type rating training does not include visual circuit training. That info from someone who recently completed their 737NG type rating in Australia.

Moreover from the very first simulator session, the accent is on full use of automation rather than give the student the opportunity to fly the 737 by hand without flight director or other automatic features to get the feel of his first jet.

Yet there is no doubt that repeated circuits and landings in the simulator manually flown with FD and AT off, gives new pilots more confidence in flying the aeroplane than staring fixedly at the PFD and MAP and fiddling around with the MCP while pressing autopilot buttons. Others are welcome to disagree, but in my job we see the immediate results in the simulator.When I was teaching the 777 at Boeing we not only did visual approaches, but there was one on the checkride

[RAT 5]

I have to admit that at night, on a circle, I would like to have glidepath assistance. You are close in and needing to transition from level to an accurate descent path probably slightly before you are wings level on C.L. PAPI's would help this enormously. The error margin is very small. A visual circuit at >1500' should be possible for a competent pilot, but is so rarely practiced that it seems safer and more sound commercially for an operator to insist on PAPI's.
Daytime, that's another issue. There has been comment about 'not being trained' for this or that. There are some operators who have that philosophy, which limits them sometimes because you can't train of every eventuality. Which brings the debate full circle about the depth of basic training. I know the opening thread was not about that. Sorry.

[galaxy flyer]

RAT5,

Maybe in your part of the world, but in the US, I’d bet 60% of all approaches by air carriers are visuals. Moves more tin.

[RAT 5]

I'm not sure of the point. Visuals are great ideas, and I spent many a happy day doing them in tiny Greek islands and at major EU hubs. In the islands, with old VASIS the sun often made them invisible and useless. My comment was at night on a circle which equals a low height. A visual started at circuit height or higher is no sweat, or should not be. Glide slope guidance at night, for a shortened visual, is a normal requirement for many companies. It would be unlikely for a commercial jet to be landing at an airfield, at night, on a visual circuit, that did not have PAPI as a minimum aid. That would be an 'out in the sticks' airfield of which there are very very few, if any on commercial jet routes.

[galaxy flyer]

Maybe I misinterpreted a post here, your’s or someone else’s, saying visuals were rather rarely done in airline ops. Rather common here, even at major airports, see KSFO.

[aterpster]

The only airport on the routes I flew that never did visuals was JFK.

[galaxy flyer]

Accepting the CRI to 13L/R is an instrument approach, of course. :p

[RAT 5]

Before this gets off track and not comparing apples & apples: we're not talking about visuals yes/no; the discussion drifted from its original question into whether PAPI's are required to conduct a visual, ref the circling chart in France. It then drifted into whether a competent pilot needs glidepath guidance to conduct a visual, and further into whether they are necessary at night.
1. A competent pilot should be able to make a visual approach in daytime without glideslope guidance.
2. There'll be very very few runways serving commercial jet traffic that do not have glideslope guidance.
3. Visuals at night are not a problem., but certainly safer with glideslope guidance; and a mandatory requirement by many operators.
4. ergo; circling a commercial jet at low height is safer with glideslope guidance due to the much shortened finals, and at night is certainly a likely safety requirement. Circling in a dark hole is not a smart idea.
5. Visuals move more tin; assuming competence and lack of GA's.
6. A visual circuit is commenced at a height = to or > circuit height, therefore higher than circling.

Are we in agreement?

[Check Airman]

A few posters mentioned training earlier. Here in the US, part of your checkride for a type rating will include a viaual approach with no flaps and no vertical guidance (electronic or visual).

On my very first jet, I had to demonstrate to the check airman that I was able to do a visual approach without any vertical guidance. As it was a revenue flight, flaps were permitted 😊

On my most recent jet, I was required to demonstrate an approach with no automation (AP, FD, AT). Are EASA training requirements not similar?

[RAT 5]

In 80's UK CAA base training check had to include a non-VASI approach and 3 night landings. Under JAR I think both were removed. Others, e.g. Base trainers, will confirm or correct. Under RLD rules, 80's, on live a/c, I had to do all engine circuits, low level circuit, engine out circuit, no guidance circuit. Night was sim. EASA? Again we ask a base trainer.

[aterpster]

Accepting the CRI to 13L/R is an instrument approach, of course. :p

That's what they call it.:eek: It has more waivers to criteria than Carter has little pills.

I recall one time we were still IMC at MDA for 13L. We did the missed approach and they switched to the ILS 13L.

Why no ILS for 13R?

[galaxy flyer]

How do they run ILSs to the 13s with LGA traffic? I’d think it pretty difficult. Yes, I think there’s approaches to LGA 13; but then EWR and TEB are in the way.

[wiedehopf]

-- offtopic disclaimer -- (sry RAT5)

if the NY tracon switches JFK to ILS 13L it's really bad for them. LGA goes to 13 operation too and limits volume of EWR/LGA/TEB massively. mostly LGA/TEB i think.
couple of days ago operating JFK13L they switched JFK to 22R single runway ops to get the delays/holding for TEB/LGA/EWR down. JFK ground was not amused and said the tracon calls it "delay balancing"

regarding ILS13R: the curve onto the ils13L is already very tight with other airspace and in avoiding manhattan skyscrapers by a comfortable margin.
at the give distance for joining the ils you can't design the approach above 3000 and even if you could: LGA incoming passes at 4000 and makes a left 270 onto ILS13 there.

i guess you could run an RNP transition onto an ILS for 13R at 1500ft or even just the existing RNP13R if the minimums are above 500 but to get that approved is another story.
also ILS13L is really rare and the 13R glideslope would be even further towards the city.

maybe underfire could tell us how much of a nightmare this would be :)

[aterpster]

How do they run ILSs to the 13s with LGA traffic? I’d think it pretty difficult. Yes, I think there’s approaches to LGA 13; but then EWR and TEB are in the way.



They had to switch LGA to 13. I don't think they worry so much about TEB. On another dark and stormy night we missed in an L10 on the ILS 13 at LGA and they slam-dunk us onto the JFK 13L. Got set up and had a G/S flag. The G/S was OTS but they didn't tell us. Learned later it was on the ATIS, which we didn't have time to check. It all worked out fine but it was breaking links in the chain.

[underfire]

hop,

There really arent many procedures for 13R or 13L. I dont see that 13R has an ILS. Looking at the GPS for 13R/13L that would probably be the path for the RNP AR procedure? (the Parkway visual approach looks about the same) There are RNP procedures for other runway ends except 13L/R...
Getting the minimum down to 500 from 800 may be difficult. RNP 0.1 may help, but dont know the controlling obstacle...RNAV RNP to visual?

RNP to ILS, or even GLS, I dont see the FAA doing those anytime soon. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/parc/parc_reco/media/2017/170424PARCRNPtoGLSRNPtoLPVRecs.pdf

[wiedehopf]

@underfire

the RNP to 13L/R already exists after being tested as RNAV Visual 13L by JetBlue extensively.
(http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/oswg/kjfk%20rnav%20visual%20rwy%2013l.pdf - since end of testing NOTAMed out of service)

this honeywell pdf is one of the only documents describing the procedure on page 23:
https://www.mygdc.com/assets/public_files/gdc_services/pilot_services/presentations/RNP_AR_Deep_Dive_HON_Ops_Conf_2013.pdf

RNP 0.3 with DA of 519' though i ofc can't be sure this is the approved version.

what i am sure of is that as of 2017 not only jetblue but also delta, american airlines and cathay pacific is using the RNP to 13L. (jetblue aircraft don't even have to request it, they are told to expect it on initial contact with the tracon. the other airlines not all aircraft request it but a reasonable percentage)

nonetheless you are of course correct 13R has no ILS and no appropriate approach lights.
just wanted to line out the reasons why there is no ILS to 13R by explaining what would be necessary ;)

[underfire]

Thanks for the plates, I just looked at the public procedures.

I really dont see anything unusual that this could not be published as public, especially if many airlines are already using it. With a single turn to final, it could simply be RNP, not RNP-AR...

One thing that would really help, would be speed restrictions on the waypoints to keep the RNP traffic moving, rather than going to idle descent, and potentially being a roadblock.

Not clear why the FAA does this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd8IvorFvWo

[Capn Bloggs]

I keep checking this thread for stuff on PAPIs.... :{

[aterpster]

The problem with the Jetblue RNP AR to 13L is that the DA occurs while still in an RF leg. That is not permitted for a public procedure. Jetblue obtained a special authorization waiver.

[underfire]

back to post #11

In the FAA world, there is nothing in the operational rules for NOTAMS that even mentions inoperative PAPI/VASI lighting, even for snow obstruction.

These are the ICAO rules.

5.3.5 Visual approach slope indicator systems
Application
5.3.5.1 A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway whether or not the runway is served by other visual approach aids or by non-visual aids, where one or more of the following conditions exist:

a) the runway is used by turbojet or other aeroplanes with similar approach guidance requirements;

b) the pilot of any type of aeroplane may have difficulty in judging the approach due to:
.....1) inadequate visual guidance such as is experienced during an approach over water or featureless terrain by day or in the absence of sufficient extraneous lights in the approach area by night, or
.....2) misleading information such as is produced by deceptive surrounding terrain or runway slopes;

c) the presence of objectsin the approach area may involve serious hazard if an aeroplane descends below the normal approach path, particularly if there are no non-visual or other visual aids to give warning of such objects;

d) physical conditions at either end of the runway present a serious hazard in the event of an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway; and

e) terrain or prevalent meteorological conditions are such that the aeroplane may be subjected to unusual turbulence during approach.

Looking at the above, there are the determinations when an indicator is required. IF a PAPI is required, and non-op, it will be covered in a NOTAM.
As you noted, there are local exceptions, but there are rules for when it is required, and other considerations. If the determination is that it is not required, then inop doesnt matter.

As you noted, you brought up Straya rules, which show night ops need electronic or visual slope guidance...

Order 82.5
5 Obligations in relation to aerodromes
5.1 An operator must conduct operations in accordance with regulation 92A.
5.2 An operator must ensure that night operations are only conducted from an aerodrome for which there is:
............(a) a published instrument approach procedure; and
............(b) a serviceable and available navigation aid; and
............(c) obstruction lighting where necessary.
Note A navigation aid includes GNSS.
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic OR visual approach slope guidance.
5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.
emphasis added

Given that this says 'or', you can have the ILS with or without PAPI/VASI, and if there is no ILS, the PAPI/VASI must be op. You provided a conditional approval for your airline from CASA on the lighting inop, but that approval is just for you.

EDIT:

Thoughts:

There are plenty of instances worldwide, when there is a temporary displaced threshold, where there is no PAPI/VASI lighting...the NOTAMS provide the guidance for the requirements.

There are many plates which state that glideslope is not coincident with PAPI/VASI.....

[underfire]

The problem with the Jetblue RNP AR to 13L is that the DA occurs while still in an RF leg.

ahhh, there you go. They just cant get wrapped around that can they? I remember when they tried to get me to move the DA to the beginning of the turn.....

[RAT 5]

5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic OR visual approach slope guidance.

That would suggest that following an NPA, where there is no electronic guidance to touchdown, the PAPI's must be working for use at MDA. N'est ce pas?

[Capn Bloggs]

Correct (in Oz). And not only on NPAs. An RPT Hi-capacity jet operation must have slope guidance (GS or VASI/PAPI), day or night, on any approach, including Visual. Exemptions permit ops for 7 days if slope guidance is U/S provided the captain complies with the exemption rules (as I mentioned earlier).