Lanzarote ACE - VOR Rwy 21

[FlashOver]

Flew down to ACE last night, with the wind favouring Rwy 21 (pretty much down the runway at 11 kts). Haven’t used Rwy 21 since they moved the LTE VOR and reissued the VOR Rwy 21 approach plate. It used to be 13 degrees offset with an MDA of 1640 ft. However, the new plate has an offset of only 2 degrees, bringing you much closer to the high ground to the west of the arrival – and the new approach plate says’ “Straight-in-landing – Not Authorized”

On landing, we were told that quite a few aircraft in front off us had had to go-around due to the GPWS going off. Apparently, they’d elected, one by one, to go for the ILS on 03 and take the tail wind. We planned to do this from the outset because the new approach plate takes you so close to that high ground; it was night; and the plate says “Not Authorized” on it!

Questions: What does “Straight-in-landing – Not Authorized” mean in this instance? Surely if you become visual before you reach the circling minima, then you simply call ‘visual’ and land

Having moved the LTE VOR to the east of the runway, they obviously had to swing the final approach course anticlockwise to keep it lined up with the Missed Approach point. Doesn’t this render the whole approach fairly useless if it now takes you so close to the terrain that the GPWS is going to go off every time?

Answers appreciated – especially if you too are a regular to ACE

[bfisk]

Do you have a copy of the plate, there, do you?

[FlashOver]

Yes. I've scanned both the old and the new plates as jpegs. You should be able to see them here

Flickr: FlashOver1's Photostream

Thanks for the reply

[BOAC]

Certainly a puzzle. As I understand it a 'straight-in' has to be within 30 deg of the c/line, anyhting else would be a CTL, and in fact CTL is the only minima published (2450/70) for the VOR 21 - so why not call it a CTL R21? The 'VOR21' page also shows a profile descent BELOW CTL minima on the procedure.to a MAP at around 600' .Also the new VOR 21 approach page does not really mesh with 10.0 and its guidance on flying the 'VOR21' below MDA.

I suspect someone in GCRR or Jepp has got confused! BTW, there is nothing in my book preventing a visual approach as long as you are visual by CTL minima. Why not raise it with your company?

[bfisk]

I've never operated to Lanzarote but this does seem strange indeed. I checked with the Spanish AIP and they don't publish straight in minimas either. So I suppose it could be any number of reasons, such as

1) Is there any terrain to prevent straight in landings on 21? It didn't seem that way from the old plate. If it was the case then it shouldn't be named VOR21 anyway, but rather VOR-A (or B, or C...).

2) Perhaps with the new plate, a high minimas would give missed approach points at a great distance if flown straight in CDFA, which might be undesirable, so it's left out? However, you don't have to place the MAPt in accordance with CFDA anyway...

3) They didn't get around to calculating a straight in minima yet. Suprises me they would publish the approach then...

4) It's a slip from the Spanish AIP, with it just not being published, and as such Jeppesen doesn't have anything to base their plate on, hence not authorized on the Jepp...


Does indeed look strange though. Looking forward to some local operators with a more sensible answer!

[FlashOver]

Thanks for your replies BOAC and bfisk

We will be bringing this up with the company I’ve been down there 15 times in the past few years and only ever landed on Rwy 21 once. Having said that, I notice the wind is favouring Rwy 21 again today!

The new procedure really does take you very close to the terrain – approaching D9.9 LTE you can to descend to 2800’, which is very close to the high terrain at 2205’ (is that even legal in IMC? You’re still above the circling minima... so quite able to be IMC). But why? You don’t need to be any lower than 3500’ at D9.9 LTE to fly a nice profile. You keep a nice 3.5 degree descent going and it’ll work out beautifully

In daytime operations, I imagine crews will get fed up with terrain warnings and either start cobbling together some kind of offset visual approach or opt, as we did, to accept the tailwind on Rwy 03 (which is fine until the day comes when it exceeds the company maximum tailwind)

I know we’re supposed to embrace change in this business, but I wish they’d left that VOR where it was

[eckhard]

Haven't had a chance to look at the plates, but sometimes an approach within 30 degrees of the QFU only has circling minima due to the high MDA making a straight-in landing difficult/impossible. Tabriz springs to mind. Maybe this is the problem at ACE?

I'll have a closer look tomorrow and see if I can come up with something better.

[dwshimoda]

Did 21 the other day and I have to say, you come awfully close to the high ground on the North side. We had a GPWS but good visual contact and the runway in sight some 9 miles ahead.

I absolutely wouldn't want to do it at night or in rubbish conditions though.

I've never done the offset VOR before, and this was my first approach to 21 and I was somewhat surprised by it. We spent a long time on the broefing, and were still not totally reassured.

[BOAC]

eckhard and others - hardly an 'offset' - 2 degrees.

Originally Posted by Flashover

is that even legal in IMC?

- yes

3500’ at D9.9 LTE to fly a nice profile

- why a CDA is a good idea?

[tubby linton]

My company requires that you are in clear visual contact with the two obstacles at 4nm and you offset to the left of the centerline until within 3nm.Obviously this can only be achieved during daylight hours.Do not fly below the already steep papi angle.
I normally will go for the ILS on 03 and take the tail wind component up to afm limits.

[BOAC]

All very sensible, Tubs, and a 'visual approach', so not 'the procedure' that the OP is asking about?

[tubby linton]

My company's advice is that as this is now a circling procedure you are basically going to fly a visual circuit onto 21,and thus the procedure onto 21 is superfluous as you cannot use it to fly straight in.
Personally if I have to fly an approach onto 21 I would rather complete the ILS on 03 to circling minima and then when visual establish into a left down wind leg for 21.I think this is simpler than flying the 210 radial LTE to the map at 1.5 D and then turning hard left into the downwind leg ,especially if the visibility is right on minima and you are trying to lose 2400 feet.

[BOAC]

Yes - that is how I interpret the 'latest' charts, but regarding "the procedure onto 21 is superfluous as you cannot use it to fly straight in." - I disagree - if you are visual (with obstacles of course as well) at circling MDA surely you can continue visually 'straight in' - ie treat it as a 'cloud break' (if that still exists in 'EU' land) or is that verboten in your lot?

[tubby linton]

I suppose that if it is a nice day and the wind is from the south you can fly straight in but in that case I would be flying a visual and using the papi.The descent angle on the chart does not match the papi angle which is a bit strange when you are trying to avoid close in obstacles..

[gatbusdriver]

Very interesting.

Haven't been into ACE since June. Having looked at your post I decided to look at our online route manual. the airfield brief at the front of the Jepp plates has not been updated and still talks about an offset of 13 degrees.

Thanks for bringing this up. Will have to have a word with the co. tomorrow.

[FlashOver]

Thanks for all your input everyone - much appreciated

On leave now - will see what our company has to say about it when I return

All the best

[Down Three Greens]

You may find the following articles of use.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/178-1.pdf

Why is a circling MDA published at some locations when the final approach is runway aligned?

Final approach course alignment is only one of a number of criteria that need to be met for a straight-in approach. Unless all the requirements can be satisfied, only a circling MDA is published. Does that mean that a straight-in approach cannot be made in those cases?

No. It means that the instrument approach procedure and/or the runway approach surfaces do not meet all the associated safety standards. If on becoming visual the pilot assesses that the aircraft is in a suitable position to land straight-in, and the pilot is considers that it is safe to do so, a straight-in approach can be conducted provided the rules for circling are followed.

Those rules include the requirement to be established within the circling area before leaving the MDA. (AIP ENR 1.5 Section 1.7). If the decision is made to “circle” straight-in, the pilot should take into account that the runway and the runway approach area may not meet the standards for a straight-in approach and caution should be exercised.

www.terps.com/ifrr/nov97.pdf

“Straight-in Minimums:
Are shown on the IAP when the final
approach course is within 30 degrees
of the runway alignment and a
normal descent can be made from the
IFR altitude shown on the IAP to the
runway surface. When either the normal
rate of descent or the runway
alignment factor of 30 degrees is
exceeded, a straight-in minimum is
not published and a circling minimum
applies. The fact that a straight-in
minimum is not published does not
preclude pilots from landing straight
in if they have the active runway in
sight and have sufficient time to make
a normal approach for landing.

I hope the above helps.

[tubby linton]

Down three greens.I have had a look at the links you provided and I believe the reason circling minima has been published for this runway is the descent angle on the procedure exceeds that allowed for a straight-in(p10 of the Australian document) for a cat C/D aircraft.
My company's advice was written before this new chart appeared so I am imagine somebody in our headshed will have a look at it and re-write the notice.

[Down Three Greens]

tubby linton - That would be consistent with the ethos we are operating to. Revised advice in our company was published a couple of weeks ago.

The PAPI's are at 3.7 degrees and approach chart is published at the standard CDA of 3.0 deg. As you mention the 3.7 degree is outside the Cat C/D criteria.

The revised advice is along the lines of flying the 3.0 deg Rwy 21 VOR as a CDA to circling minima, visually acquire the PAPI, fly a small level segment at MDA until intercepting the 3.7 degree visual slope then continue descent to runway 21.

This was probably deemed a safer option than overflying Runway 21, turning left-hand downwind (circling procedure) and then start a descending left turn towards terrain to roll-out on finals for Rwy 21.

[BOAC]

An interesting thread indeed. I am not aware of an EU OPS limit on NPA glide angle other than the ICAO 3.8 degrees (which I think is based on max of 1000fpm?) - does anyone have a reference? EU OPS would of course be the relevant regulation. Thanks for the link to the Aus pdf - very useful. .

It certainly explains why the procedure is so complicated!