Use of PAPI
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of PAPI
Hey guys and gals,
The other week I flew dual and the instructor insisted on flying with those 2 whites and 2 reds all the way done however I was flying a C210 so in my mind why would I be worrying about those PAPI lights?
Having flown cubs to the baron I personally I only use them when I am on an instrument approach. Flying visually around I use judgement on my approach path. I know a few flying schools teach students to use the lights for the approach but its the old question of going into a strip that doesn't have them what will this poor student do???
Unless its an instrument approach I don't bother...
What do you do?
The other week I flew dual and the instructor insisted on flying with those 2 whites and 2 reds all the way done however I was flying a C210 so in my mind why would I be worrying about those PAPI lights?
Having flown cubs to the baron I personally I only use them when I am on an instrument approach. Flying visually around I use judgement on my approach path. I know a few flying schools teach students to use the lights for the approach but its the old question of going into a strip that doesn't have them what will this poor student do???
Unless its an instrument approach I don't bother...
What do you do?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on, it's all about good airmanship and using all the available aids for safe flight.
It's not about being a pussy. If I were the instructor sitting next to you, how the hell am I supposed to read your mind ?
It's not about being a pussy. If I were the instructor sitting next to you, how the hell am I supposed to read your mind ?
Instrument or Visual approach, day or night, fly it the same way everytime, why mix it up?
Why mix it up?
Dr
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not about being a pussy? So the bush pilots who don't use PAPI's are pussies?
Use all the aids you can for safe flight? So not using the PAPI's is unsafe?
Thank goodness 'Arm Out The Window' is able to put a reason behind the statement and that was exactly the mindset that I have been taught by.
Why drag your butt in when you don't need to?
I certainly wasn't questioning anyone on why they don't fly it like I would but am curious to see what advantages there are to flying a 3 degree approach all the time.
Use all the aids you can for safe flight? So not using the PAPI's is unsafe?
Thank goodness 'Arm Out The Window' is able to put a reason behind the statement and that was exactly the mindset that I have been taught by.
Why drag your butt in when you don't need to?
I certainly wasn't questioning anyone on why they don't fly it like I would but am curious to see what advantages there are to flying a 3 degree approach all the time.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do power off approaches as a matter of course then?
Its a useful tool that if you're not going to use, a quick remark to that effect to the guy next to you might be worth considering, especially if you are not PIC.
Its a useful tool that if you're not going to use, a quick remark to that effect to the guy next to you might be worth considering, especially if you are not PIC.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No to the power off approaches. Still had 15-18" manifold during the approach.
You are correct in saying you should state that you are flying a higher profile which I did and he said no dramas.
You are correct in saying you should state that you are flying a higher profile which I did and he said no dramas.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FL410
Age: 22
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obstacles
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that there is actually a regulation that says that if a PAPI or other visual approach indicator installed, that you must follow it. Precisely because they are not all 3 degrees!
I know of at least two airports, where not following the visual approach indicator can have you greeting hi tension wires in one case, and dangerously close to the tops of trees on an island in a river just off the threshold. Pilots focus on the landing zone and "forget" about the bits sticking up....
Above and steeper is fine of course.....
Oh.......a third airport comes to mind, where the PAPI (and displaced threshold) keep you away from being too close to the elevated commuter train station. Breaking the modern stabilised approach philosophy, I follow the PAPI on that one too until past the airport fence, then increase my rate of descent, decrease power, flare adding a bit of power, and land just past the threshold.
Ono
I know of at least two airports, where not following the visual approach indicator can have you greeting hi tension wires in one case, and dangerously close to the tops of trees on an island in a river just off the threshold. Pilots focus on the landing zone and "forget" about the bits sticking up....
Above and steeper is fine of course.....
Oh.......a third airport comes to mind, where the PAPI (and displaced threshold) keep you away from being too close to the elevated commuter train station. Breaking the modern stabilised approach philosophy, I follow the PAPI on that one too until past the airport fence, then increase my rate of descent, decrease power, flare adding a bit of power, and land just past the threshold.
Ono
The issue at hand was being above the 3ish degree slope. I've yet to hit a mast, a tree or even a train station being above slope...
I'd personally be deliberately above slope on a PAPI or ILS in a piston single on a nice day and descending to it or well below depending on my desired taxiway.
If your instructor was setting the exercise on a single approach to test your aircraft handling then fine. If not then I think he has a case of shiny jet envy and is trying to fly a Cessna in the way of a Boeing as that's where he wants to be. He's doing himself and his student a disservice.
As ab aside the PAPIs are in many places set up fir A380 eye height. So if you are flying them to the ground (even in a A320) you'll land a looong way down the runway.
I'd personally be deliberately above slope on a PAPI or ILS in a piston single on a nice day and descending to it or well below depending on my desired taxiway.
If your instructor was setting the exercise on a single approach to test your aircraft handling then fine. If not then I think he has a case of shiny jet envy and is trying to fly a Cessna in the way of a Boeing as that's where he wants to be. He's doing himself and his student a disservice.
As ab aside the PAPIs are in many places set up fir A380 eye height. So if you are flying them to the ground (even in a A320) you'll land a looong way down the runway.
Last edited by compressor stall; 16th Aug 2011 at 10:29. Reason: Auto spell correct...
Breaking the modern stabilised approach philosophy, I follow the PAPI on that one too until past the airport fence, then increase my rate of descent, decrease power, flare adding a bit of power, and land just past the threshold.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breaking the modern stabilised approach philosophy, I follow the PAPI on that one too until past the airport fence, then increase my rate of descent, decrease power, flare adding a bit of power, and land just past the threshold.
Sadly after holding a CPL for over 25 years I had to google PAPI to find out what the acronym was. i thought it was TVASI 
Whatever, I go with LOuO, never felt the urge ...
Whatever, I go with LOuO, never felt the urge ...
As an ex-RAF/Private/airline IRE TRE/ driver it does seem to me bizarre if instructors are teaching students to rely on powered approaches with PAPIs - other than in practising instrument approaches.
Would it not be more useful to be teaching the differing visual cues from wide/narrow or upslope/downslope runways? How do they handle the engine failure case into an unknown field?
Would it not be more useful to be teaching the differing visual cues from wide/narrow or upslope/downslope runways? How do they handle the engine failure case into an unknown field?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: all around
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most likely the instructor is a low timer and was taught to follow the PAPI. I have seen instructor's that cannot land on 5000'. From 16k+ I can tell you the most dangerous time not to follow PAPI is in rain with good vis. Next time say "Visually above the PAPI" or "Visually below".
Yes, those of us who do not fly an automated bus do configure ourselves to land where ever we choose. From asphalt to Eskers.....
Yes, those of us who do not fly an automated bus do configure ourselves to land where ever we choose. From asphalt to Eskers.....
VASIS was mandated in Australia following several Boeing 727 approach accidents in USA after the 727 first flew. In those days, seniority reigned supreme in US airlines and so older captains who had flown DC6 and similar were automatically in line for the first of the 727 commands.
Accidents soon happened due to difference in propeller aircraft (instant power available if undershooting) and the slow spool up time of early jet engines. Hence the stabilised approach criteria came into being which included engines being spooled up in a jet to the appropriate thrust to ensure acceptable rate of descent on final. Although rudimentary VASIS had been available before advent of jets, it wasn't until Australian DCA experts perfected the T-VASIS did visual approach slope guidance get really accurate. The former red/white VASIS had serious limitations and T-VASIS was designed to overcome those.
Both T-VASIS and PAPI were designed to aid jet transport aircraft on visual glide path which used to be 2.5 degrees in the early Sixties but were later increased to three degrees in Australia would you believe for noise abatement at Sydney for runway 07. There is a long story about that but sufficient to say there were political issues involved with noise complaints under the Sydney 07 ILS. ILS glide slopes were jacked up to three degrees which gave a less noise footprint and for standardisation T-VASIS were jacked up also. I had some practical involvement with DCA in the flight calibration of the jacked up ILS and T-VASIS in 1970.
VASIS was never designed with light aircraft in mind and since these aircraft have a normal landing approach of around five to six degrees, it is obvious that three degrees is far too flat and requires significant power. About the only advantage for light aircraft using visual approach slope guidance is if the aircraft gets ridiculously low (undershooting) and the VASIS/PAPI goes all red. That happens at an angle of around 1.9 degrees which is real flat.
I believe a Thai International Boeing 777 tried that trick recently while attempting to land at night on Melbourne 34. That was enough to give any pilot the shivers.
VASIS/PAPI are not installed purely for glide slope guidance after breaking out visually from a Cat One ILS. They are nothing to do with instrument approaches. Australian regs require jet transports to have glide slope guidance whether electronic (ILS) or a lighting system. Instructors on light aircraft should certainly explain to students how to fly the VASIS/PAPI but only to point out the advantages of these visual aids for high performance aircraft that need a three degree slope as part of stabilised approach criteria.
Accidents soon happened due to difference in propeller aircraft (instant power available if undershooting) and the slow spool up time of early jet engines. Hence the stabilised approach criteria came into being which included engines being spooled up in a jet to the appropriate thrust to ensure acceptable rate of descent on final. Although rudimentary VASIS had been available before advent of jets, it wasn't until Australian DCA experts perfected the T-VASIS did visual approach slope guidance get really accurate. The former red/white VASIS had serious limitations and T-VASIS was designed to overcome those.
Both T-VASIS and PAPI were designed to aid jet transport aircraft on visual glide path which used to be 2.5 degrees in the early Sixties but were later increased to three degrees in Australia would you believe for noise abatement at Sydney for runway 07. There is a long story about that but sufficient to say there were political issues involved with noise complaints under the Sydney 07 ILS. ILS glide slopes were jacked up to three degrees which gave a less noise footprint and for standardisation T-VASIS were jacked up also. I had some practical involvement with DCA in the flight calibration of the jacked up ILS and T-VASIS in 1970.
VASIS was never designed with light aircraft in mind and since these aircraft have a normal landing approach of around five to six degrees, it is obvious that three degrees is far too flat and requires significant power. About the only advantage for light aircraft using visual approach slope guidance is if the aircraft gets ridiculously low (undershooting) and the VASIS/PAPI goes all red. That happens at an angle of around 1.9 degrees which is real flat.
I believe a Thai International Boeing 777 tried that trick recently while attempting to land at night on Melbourne 34. That was enough to give any pilot the shivers.
VASIS/PAPI are not installed purely for glide slope guidance after breaking out visually from a Cat One ILS. They are nothing to do with instrument approaches. Australian regs require jet transports to have glide slope guidance whether electronic (ILS) or a lighting system. Instructors on light aircraft should certainly explain to students how to fly the VASIS/PAPI but only to point out the advantages of these visual aids for high performance aircraft that need a three degree slope as part of stabilised approach criteria.