Norwich ATCOs -- help please
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwich ATCOs -- help please
A question which has puzzled me:
On the AIP aerodrome chart for Norwich, EGSH, runway 04/22 is marked as being for visual use only.
However, there are instrument approaches published for both 04 and 22 (SRAs terminating at 2nm).
Is the 'visual only' comment a mistake, or is there something subtle that I'm missing.
AA.
On the AIP aerodrome chart for Norwich, EGSH, runway 04/22 is marked as being for visual use only.
However, there are instrument approaches published for both 04 and 22 (SRAs terminating at 2nm).
Is the 'visual only' comment a mistake, or is there something subtle that I'm missing.
AA.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure about the technicalities of this, but whilst I worked at Edinburgh we were only allowed to do SRAs whilst some work was going on inside the instrument strip on 06/24. No NDBs or ILSs were allowed.
I assume that this means that SRG/CAA treat an SRA as a visual approach as far as the runway strip is concerned.
I assume that this means that SRG/CAA treat an SRA as a visual approach as far as the runway strip is concerned.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
12/30 at Edinburgh also has SRAs only and is designated for visual use only (though it doesn't say so on the chart). 10/28 at Glasgow is similar although it isn't actually restricted to visual use - it's only "not usable when LVPs in force".
I know, doesn't answer your question!
NS
I know, doesn't answer your question!
NS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Tribekey's comment explains why a 'visual only' runway can have SRA approaches. But why is an SRA considered to be a visual approach? Would a PAR also be considered a visual approach?
The distinction I am making is, it seems unlikely to be connected with whether an approach is precision or not. Perhaps it is to do with not using a radio aid?
Or is it to do with the MDA being similar to the visual circling minimum -- as it is at Norwich?
I'm still puzzled.
AA.
The distinction I am making is, it seems unlikely to be connected with whether an approach is precision or not. Perhaps it is to do with not using a radio aid?
Or is it to do with the MDA being similar to the visual circling minimum -- as it is at Norwich?
I'm still puzzled.
AA.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The diference between a PAR and an SRA is that a PAR is a precision approach ( Guidance in Both azimuth and elevation) whereas an SRA is guidance in Azimuth combined with advisory heights.
TIO
TIO
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual runway is just that, ie no instrument strip or transitional slopes, no need for papi's or runway lighting, different runway markings. IAP's to it are in fact "cloud breaks", terminating at the vmc/circling minima. I presume the SRA will terminate at at least 650', pilot will then continue visually from there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
givenupp said:
I have now had a look at Edinburgh's 12/30. The AIP does describe it as a 'visual only' runway. It does have good runway lighting, TDZ marks, approach lighting and PAPIs. So the reason it is visual only is not to do with these matters.
It may be to do with the runway strip, since 12/30 does have buildings significantly closer to it than the main runway 06/24. Perhaps this is the answer, although its length is substantially shorter than 06/24, which would reduce the size of the strip, wouldn't it?
The MDH for SRAs to both ends of the runway are above the circling minima (at least to the north), so this may also be the reason.
However, I've also taken a look at an airfield with only one runway with approaches, Cambridge. Cambridge has an ILS and two NDB approaches and also SRAs to the same runway. In this case, the SRA can terminate at 0.5nm. The SRA MDH is lower than the circling minimum, so I do not think that the idea that an SRA is a 'visual' approach applies because the SRA MDA is the same or higher than the circling altitude.
My brain is now hurting, so I'll give up, unless anybody really knows the answer.
AA.
Visual runway is just that, ie no instrument strip or transitional slopes, no need for papi's or runway lighting, different runway markings.
It may be to do with the runway strip, since 12/30 does have buildings significantly closer to it than the main runway 06/24. Perhaps this is the answer, although its length is substantially shorter than 06/24, which would reduce the size of the strip, wouldn't it?
The MDH for SRAs to both ends of the runway are above the circling minima (at least to the north), so this may also be the reason.
However, I've also taken a look at an airfield with only one runway with approaches, Cambridge. Cambridge has an ILS and two NDB approaches and also SRAs to the same runway. In this case, the SRA can terminate at 0.5nm. The SRA MDH is lower than the circling minimum, so I do not think that the idea that an SRA is a 'visual' approach applies because the SRA MDA is the same or higher than the circling altitude.
My brain is now hurting, so I'll give up, unless anybody really knows the answer.
AA.
This is a good question, I hope we can get an authoritative answer, with references, to it. I don't know the answer, but my contribution would be this:
We all seem to understand that PAR & SRA are ground-interpreted, Instrument Approaches. With DA and MDA's comparable to pilot-interpreted instrument approaches, they can hardly be considered "cloudbreak" procedures. So perhaps the answer, or a clue, may be found in the definition of "visual use only" for a runway. Does anyone know that?
I do have a contact who should be able to help, but I'd like to see if it can be sorted out here first.
We all seem to understand that PAR & SRA are ground-interpreted, Instrument Approaches. With DA and MDA's comparable to pilot-interpreted instrument approaches, they can hardly be considered "cloudbreak" procedures. So perhaps the answer, or a clue, may be found in the definition of "visual use only" for a runway. Does anyone know that?
I do have a contact who should be able to help, but I'd like to see if it can be sorted out here first.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is, as has been aluded to already, that the last 2 miles of the approach must be conducted viusally, i.e. if you don't get the runway in sight when the SRA terminates, you must go around.
The same applies to an SRA anywhere else in the UK.
Sadly, runway 04/22 at Norwich is closed due to subsidence on the north side of the intersection with 27/09, and it's unlikely ever to re open due the cost of the repair work.
Crying shame cos it's a very useful option, not only for us, but the operators as well.
Anyone got £2.50?
The same applies to an SRA anywhere else in the UK.
Sadly, runway 04/22 at Norwich is closed due to subsidence on the north side of the intersection with 27/09, and it's unlikely ever to re open due the cost of the repair work.
Crying shame cos it's a very useful option, not only for us, but the operators as well.
Anyone got £2.50?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
The extras you mention are optional, not a requirement as per CAP168, Aerodrome licencing. Visual runways are quite common for "cross" runways, ie. not the principle. You can have any IAP you want to them, however the minima will only be at or above the aerodromes VMC/circling minima. Hence the IAP's are considered cloud breaks, which happen to point you in the right general direction for the runway, but will not allow you to decend lower IMC, where you would require the protection of an instrument strip and associated transitional slopes. By only getting a visual licence for the runway you save the cost of requiring PAPIS, etc. and allow aerodrome developements which would infringe the instrument protective area. Is this clear enough??
The extras you mention are optional, not a requirement as per CAP168, Aerodrome licencing. Visual runways are quite common for "cross" runways, ie. not the principle. You can have any IAP you want to them, however the minima will only be at or above the aerodromes VMC/circling minima. Hence the IAP's are considered cloud breaks, which happen to point you in the right general direction for the runway, but will not allow you to decend lower IMC, where you would require the protection of an instrument strip and associated transitional slopes. By only getting a visual licence for the runway you save the cost of requiring PAPIS, etc. and allow aerodrome developements which would infringe the instrument protective area. Is this clear enough??
I'm glad it's clear to AA, 'cos I'm still a little puzzled.
Every non-precision approach terminates in a visual approach once the necessary visual references have been acquired. Are you saying , Niknak, that if the runway is classified as "visual only" then the RTR for the SRA must be 2nm minimum? Can you point me towards a reference? Because, of course, some SRAs terminate at 0.5 nm. These would presumably only be to an instrument runway.
Every non-precision approach terminates in a visual approach once the necessary visual references have been acquired. Are you saying , Niknak, that if the runway is classified as "visual only" then the RTR for the SRA must be 2nm minimum? Can you point me towards a reference? Because, of course, some SRAs terminate at 0.5 nm. These would presumably only be to an instrument runway.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keithl
That's it precisely. Imagine an old triangular airfield, now running with a main instrument runway east-west and two visual only cross runways. If only the main has IAP's, but you wish to land on one of the cross runways (due cross wind etc), you may shoot the approach to the main and if visual at or above the aerodromes VMC/circling minima, position (circle) visually to the cross runway. The next logical step is for considerate airport owners to provide an IAP for the cross runways that terminates at the same aerodrome VMC/circling minima, but also positions you roughly in line with the runway for the visual approach. I think I know what I mean, if not how to explain it!!
That's it precisely. Imagine an old triangular airfield, now running with a main instrument runway east-west and two visual only cross runways. If only the main has IAP's, but you wish to land on one of the cross runways (due cross wind etc), you may shoot the approach to the main and if visual at or above the aerodromes VMC/circling minima, position (circle) visually to the cross runway. The next logical step is for considerate airport owners to provide an IAP for the cross runways that terminates at the same aerodrome VMC/circling minima, but also positions you roughly in line with the runway for the visual approach. I think I know what I mean, if not how to explain it!!
