Navigation?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navigation?
I'm just embarking on my PPL and I'm trying to make sense of the whole navigation thing.
I understand all that's required for the PPL course, as it's basic VOR navigation and visual approaches.
I'm just wondering about how you chaps in the big stuff get from the airway down to the ground.
Do you always follow the approach chart or do you take vectors onto the glideslope, or both? Also at what point do you start a visual approach? Do you join a circuit, but a big one?
I understand all that's required for the PPL course, as it's basic VOR navigation and visual approaches.
I'm just wondering about how you chaps in the big stuff get from the airway down to the ground.
Do you always follow the approach chart or do you take vectors onto the glideslope, or both? Also at what point do you start a visual approach? Do you join a circuit, but a big one?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
99% of the time, the sort of flights (I presume) you are talking about, will be vectored on to the final approach track.
The main reasons for this are:
1 - It enables us as atcos to give the aircraft the most expiditous approach to the runway in use, without having to put them into the hold.
2 - It ensures that there are no significant delays to departures as well as arrivals.
The problem with visual approaches is that they still have to be treated as IFR flights, so if an aircraft declares that they are able to continue visually, it is often more expeditous to vector them onto final approach in the normal sequence, rather than let them do their own thing.
Whilst we are doing the above, it gives us a better chance of slotting in VFR flights in between IFR flights, purely because we know where everyone else is in the sequence and can regulate them accordingly (it may not seem like that, but I assure you it is the case!).
The main reasons for this are:
1 - It enables us as atcos to give the aircraft the most expiditous approach to the runway in use, without having to put them into the hold.
2 - It ensures that there are no significant delays to departures as well as arrivals.
The problem with visual approaches is that they still have to be treated as IFR flights, so if an aircraft declares that they are able to continue visually, it is often more expeditous to vector them onto final approach in the normal sequence, rather than let them do their own thing.
Whilst we are doing the above, it gives us a better chance of slotting in VFR flights in between IFR flights, purely because we know where everyone else is in the sequence and can regulate them accordingly (it may not seem like that, but I assure you it is the case!).
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Do you always (1) follow the approach chart or do you (2) take vectors onto the glideslope, or (3) both? Also at what point do you start a (4) visual approach? Do you join a (5) circuit, but (6) a big one?"
a) In a full radar environment, normally (3). (1) initially (the 'Star') then (2) - vectors from director onto final
b) In a 'procedural' environment, (1)
c) (4) When it is expeditious, and flight conditions and traffic permit.
d) (5) If the arrival direction requires it, a join downwind. eg arriving at Montpelier (from the northwest) to land on the northwest runway.
e) (6) Not if I can avoid it! OR at Montpellier when the French flying training school takes priority over (British!) commercial traffic!
a) In a full radar environment, normally (3). (1) initially (the 'Star') then (2) - vectors from director onto final
b) In a 'procedural' environment, (1)
c) (4) When it is expeditious, and flight conditions and traffic permit.
d) (5) If the arrival direction requires it, a join downwind. eg arriving at Montpelier (from the northwest) to land on the northwest runway.
e) (6) Not if I can avoid it! OR at Montpellier when the French flying training school takes priority over (British!) commercial traffic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting....thanks for the information chaps.
Just one other thing, if you're operating a largish aircraft into a field with no landing aids, and therefore I guess no approach charts, would you enter a visual circuit to land as you would in a small prop?
Just out of interest, what kind of length of circuit would you require to manouevre say a 737 or A320 and remain visual?
Just one other thing, if you're operating a largish aircraft into a field with no landing aids, and therefore I guess no approach charts, would you enter a visual circuit to land as you would in a small prop?
Just out of interest, what kind of length of circuit would you require to manouevre say a 737 or A320 and remain visual?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: sunny country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one other thing, if you're operating a largish aircraft into a field with no landing aids, and therefore I guess no approach charts, would you enter a visual circuit to land as you would in a small prop?
Yes, but normally at 1,500ft above the runway elevation instead of 1,000ft.
Just out of interest, what kind of length of circuit would you require to manouevre say a 737 or A320 and remain visual?
If a 737 or an A320 is operating on runway 02 at Santos Dumont airport - an 1,300m runway - those airplanes must be 'in the circuit' with less than 2nm of turning radius when starting base turn due to high terrain...by the way, not so much different from La Paz when making a circling approach at 14,000ft to runway 28...
Yes, but normally at 1,500ft above the runway elevation instead of 1,000ft.
Just out of interest, what kind of length of circuit would you require to manouevre say a 737 or A320 and remain visual?
If a 737 or an A320 is operating on runway 02 at Santos Dumont airport - an 1,300m runway - those airplanes must be 'in the circuit' with less than 2nm of turning radius when starting base turn due to high terrain...by the way, not so much different from La Paz when making a circling approach at 14,000ft to runway 28...
