PAPI
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sandy Surroundings!
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting! I have always been told that VASIS are NOT to be used below 200' AGL, as they are inaccurate, but that PAPIS are accurate to touchdown! Is this a fallacy?
I am starting to doubt my own info!
I am starting to doubt my own info!
Twin Jock, the mechanism of VASIS result in ‘diffuse’ light at low altitude whereby the red/white beams become pink; thus they are considered to be inaccurate below 200 ft.
PAPI is a projected light system using a lens to focus the red/white light beams. Also, there is a sharp transition between the colours so they are usable at much lower altitudes. Some of the limiting factors involve the narrowness of the individual beams and the angular difference between the box settings, but in theory PAPI can be used to touchdown.
A widespread confusion in the industry is the interchange of terms where PAPI is often called VASI or a PAPI/VASI installation.
PAPI is a projected light system using a lens to focus the red/white light beams. Also, there is a sharp transition between the colours so they are usable at much lower altitudes. Some of the limiting factors involve the narrowness of the individual beams and the angular difference between the box settings, but in theory PAPI can be used to touchdown.
A widespread confusion in the industry is the interchange of terms where PAPI is often called VASI or a PAPI/VASI installation.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A oneworld lounge near you
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a hangar full of bits:
1. the PAPI and the recommended instrumented approach angle may not be aligned
2. FAA PAPI angles sideways spread, ICAO and CAA are not necessarily the same
3. the nominal touchdown point is not suitable for land and hold short operations in most cases when using a PAPI
4. The ILS and PAPI, even if both 3.00 degrees are not necessarily aligned to the same point
5. Please remember ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 statement about a requirement for a runway to be equipped with PAPI for all turbojet operations. If the runway does not have vertical light guidance, you should not be going there.
PM me if you need more
Cheers
Discount
1. the PAPI and the recommended instrumented approach angle may not be aligned
2. FAA PAPI angles sideways spread, ICAO and CAA are not necessarily the same
3. the nominal touchdown point is not suitable for land and hold short operations in most cases when using a PAPI
4. The ILS and PAPI, even if both 3.00 degrees are not necessarily aligned to the same point
5. Please remember ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 statement about a requirement for a runway to be equipped with PAPI for all turbojet operations. If the runway does not have vertical light guidance, you should not be going there.
PM me if you need more
Cheers
Discount
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sandy Surroundings!
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys.
The B777 FCTM states that the use of a 2 bar VASI system is NOT recommended, as it provides a visual aiming point that results in the main landing gear touchdown at, or very near, the end of the runway threshold. The main gear height over the threshold with this system is 19' for the B777-300ER, and 20' and 22' for the B772 and LR respectively. Threshold to main gear touchdown with no flare is about 365' - not a huge safety margin.
The use on the other hand of the 3 bar VASI system, results in in an increased safety margin in respect to the threshold height, but may result in landing further down the runway. The main gear height over the threshold is about 70'. Although this is only 20' above the normal 50' TCH, it makes a large difference on the touchdown point. The threshold to main gear touchdown point with no flare in this instance is 1200'.
I presume that when using the 3 bar VASI, wind in another notch of autobrake - just in case!!!
The B777 FCTM states that the use of a 2 bar VASI system is NOT recommended, as it provides a visual aiming point that results in the main landing gear touchdown at, or very near, the end of the runway threshold. The main gear height over the threshold with this system is 19' for the B777-300ER, and 20' and 22' for the B772 and LR respectively. Threshold to main gear touchdown with no flare is about 365' - not a huge safety margin.
The use on the other hand of the 3 bar VASI system, results in in an increased safety margin in respect to the threshold height, but may result in landing further down the runway. The main gear height over the threshold is about 70'. Although this is only 20' above the normal 50' TCH, it makes a large difference on the touchdown point. The threshold to main gear touchdown point with no flare in this instance is 1200'.
I presume that when using the 3 bar VASI, wind in another notch of autobrake - just in case!!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Concerning the point about ICAO PAPI requirements & turbojets; it was the case in continental Europe that ILS G/S and PAPI's did not transmit at the same time. e.g. AMS. Is this still the case.
2. IMHO if both are transmitting the ILS G/S has priority. (Mark 1 eyeball even more so) However, I am constantly hearing F/O's saying they've been told to fly PAPI's when visual and ignore the G/S. This often causes a G/S 'fly down' about 300'agl. and then a big push and pull as a last minute dive is made to avoid a long landing having followed pAPI's. In IMC the A/P will fly the G/S. The G/S is flight checked more accurately than PAPI's, and monitored for accuracy. A misalignment of a PAPI is more likely than a G/S error.
Opinions?
2. IMHO if both are transmitting the ILS G/S has priority. (Mark 1 eyeball even more so) However, I am constantly hearing F/O's saying they've been told to fly PAPI's when visual and ignore the G/S. This often causes a G/S 'fly down' about 300'agl. and then a big push and pull as a last minute dive is made to avoid a long landing having followed pAPI's. In IMC the A/P will fly the G/S. The G/S is flight checked more accurately than PAPI's, and monitored for accuracy. A misalignment of a PAPI is more likely than a G/S error.
Opinions?
Last edited by RAT 5; 11th Jun 2008 at 11:23.
RAT 5, Re “A misalignment of a PAPI is more likely than a G/S error”.
Maybe, but great care is required with most assumptions.
With PAPI (sharp transition lights), depending on the ground installation/location of the PAPI-GS transmitter, there may come a point during the approach where the difference between the aircraft GS aerial and eye height will, for a zero GS error, result in an indication of a visual error.
Also, remember that at very low altitude the GS beam is parabolic – it may never actually touch the ground along the flight path over the runway (the reflected beam, off the ground surface in front of the transmitter, is at the side of the runway).
Furthermore depending on the aircraft’s autoflight system, the vertical flight path phases out the GS signal and may phase in rad alt / flight path / attitude until the flare; the aircraft may deviate from the GS.
Then there may be complexities with the relative beam widths of the GS and PAPI.
Often very little about standard systems are ‘standard’, but the compromise is good enough; in the case of PAPI it is a considerable improvement over VASI enabling it to be used at much lower altitudes consistent with low visibility operations.
Maybe, but great care is required with most assumptions.
With PAPI (sharp transition lights), depending on the ground installation/location of the PAPI-GS transmitter, there may come a point during the approach where the difference between the aircraft GS aerial and eye height will, for a zero GS error, result in an indication of a visual error.
Also, remember that at very low altitude the GS beam is parabolic – it may never actually touch the ground along the flight path over the runway (the reflected beam, off the ground surface in front of the transmitter, is at the side of the runway).
Furthermore depending on the aircraft’s autoflight system, the vertical flight path phases out the GS signal and may phase in rad alt / flight path / attitude until the flare; the aircraft may deviate from the GS.
Then there may be complexities with the relative beam widths of the GS and PAPI.
Often very little about standard systems are ‘standard’, but the compromise is good enough; in the case of PAPI it is a considerable improvement over VASI enabling it to be used at much lower altitudes consistent with low visibility operations.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PEI: Thank you for that insight. However, what, in your opinion, should be flown as target if there is a difference between PAPI & ILS G/S? Mark 1 eyeball will help greatly, but sadly many airlines these days do not teach or allow F/O's to fly approaches with no G/P guidance. At night it is certainly Capt's only. Dreadful state of affairs.
I have been to airfields on CAVOK days where the is only an NPA and very weak VASIS seen only very late in approach and on centreline. Rwy visible from 40nm slightly off C.L. Even with the VNAV box of tricks modern F/O's are not always capable of flying a visual G/P accurately and effciently with configuratioon/speed changes from 20nm out.
Because of this lack of training and exposure to visual approaches the one time it happened that we were overhead at 5000', due traffic. on a severe clear day and then cleared to land on the NPA Rwy, the PF was lost about what to do & how. Where have the piloting skills gone? Is it still the same as was amongst the Greek islands? Mark 1 eyeball approaches? In the B737-200 you had nothing unless there was a DME nearby. Now, with all this computer mappy VNAV guff you are spoon fed, but even then it is screwed up.
I have been to airfields on CAVOK days where the is only an NPA and very weak VASIS seen only very late in approach and on centreline. Rwy visible from 40nm slightly off C.L. Even with the VNAV box of tricks modern F/O's are not always capable of flying a visual G/P accurately and effciently with configuratioon/speed changes from 20nm out.
Because of this lack of training and exposure to visual approaches the one time it happened that we were overhead at 5000', due traffic. on a severe clear day and then cleared to land on the NPA Rwy, the PF was lost about what to do & how. Where have the piloting skills gone? Is it still the same as was amongst the Greek islands? Mark 1 eyeball approaches? In the B737-200 you had nothing unless there was a DME nearby. Now, with all this computer mappy VNAV guff you are spoon fed, but even then it is screwed up.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should not really need a PAPI below 500 ft anyway!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Safetypee speak with strait tongue - I council him be made Chief!
Can't comment on vintage VASIS, but PAPIs is my thang
When a runway is equipped with an ILS Glide Path, the PAPIs should be aligned so that their points of origin are the same. If you look at the drawings in CAP168, you'll notice that the angle change depends upon ILS or not.
If you fly an aircraft equal to the design aircraft then 2W 2R is set for you. If your a/c is much smaller than the design a/c, the 2W 2R will see you pass over the threshold at more than a safe height. Have a look at the AIP entry and focus on the published MEHT.
If, by any chance, you are in an a/c bigger than the design a/c the 2W 2R could result in a sudden scraping sound just before anticipated touchdown.
In other words, pilots cannot apply a broad brush criteria to the number of lights seen on approach to optimise the point of touchdown - one has to know what design a/c was used to set the PAPI angle.
Also, when were they last flight checked? How does the airport deal with new obstacles sticking up into the 4 red zone?
For answers to these and other safety questions e-mail............
er? Your guess is as Goudot as mine
Sir George Cayley
Can't comment on vintage VASIS, but PAPIs is my thang
When a runway is equipped with an ILS Glide Path, the PAPIs should be aligned so that their points of origin are the same. If you look at the drawings in CAP168, you'll notice that the angle change depends upon ILS or not.
If you fly an aircraft equal to the design aircraft then 2W 2R is set for you. If your a/c is much smaller than the design a/c, the 2W 2R will see you pass over the threshold at more than a safe height. Have a look at the AIP entry and focus on the published MEHT.
If, by any chance, you are in an a/c bigger than the design a/c the 2W 2R could result in a sudden scraping sound just before anticipated touchdown.
In other words, pilots cannot apply a broad brush criteria to the number of lights seen on approach to optimise the point of touchdown - one has to know what design a/c was used to set the PAPI angle.
Also, when were they last flight checked? How does the airport deal with new obstacles sticking up into the 4 red zone?
For answers to these and other safety questions e-mail............
er? Your guess is as Goudot as mine
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put the relationships into perspective, if it is of any interest:
For a typical ILS PAPI, you'll have three whites 0.25 deg above the nominal.
For a three degree PAPI glide path, you will have 3W/2R ten feet above the three degree GP when the GP height is at 120 feet.
Proportionality gives that when the PAPI GP is at 60 feet, it takes 5 feet above to get three white, and at 240 feet it takes 20 feet above.
Cheers,
/Fred
For a typical ILS PAPI, you'll have three whites 0.25 deg above the nominal.
For a three degree PAPI glide path, you will have 3W/2R ten feet above the three degree GP when the GP height is at 120 feet.
Proportionality gives that when the PAPI GP is at 60 feet, it takes 5 feet above to get three white, and at 240 feet it takes 20 feet above.
Cheers,
/Fred
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All recent posts all very good and very technical. Now simple question for us simple pilots about everyday simple operations.
It is common at major airports to fly ILS G/S down to about 800' with 2W
2R. Then about 500' staying on G/S gives 3R. Most F/O's pull up to fly the PAPI and the G/S goes 3/4 dot Hi.
I say fly the G/S. Some F/O's have been beaten into "fly the PAPI's."
Opinions and what do you do? Taking Mk.1 eyeball always into account.
It is common at major airports to fly ILS G/S down to about 800' with 2W
2R. Then about 500' staying on G/S gives 3R. Most F/O's pull up to fly the PAPI and the G/S goes 3/4 dot Hi.
I say fly the G/S. Some F/O's have been beaten into "fly the PAPI's."
Opinions and what do you do? Taking Mk.1 eyeball always into account.
RAT 5, Re “what … should be flown as target if there is a difference between PAPI & ILS G/S?”
You seek an ideal solution from a complex situation. If the ILS and PAPI ground installations are well harmonised and the aircraft GS/eye height is small, then the height at which there is any significant difference might be so low as not to be of interest (see ft’s post). However, very few things in aviation are ideal or definable with accuracy; with any difference between the systems it is unlikely that you will know if this is due to the ground installation or the aircraft, a normal or abnormal occurrence.
If the ground installation is non-standard this should be notified on the airport chart, but even this is not foolproof – see the recent accident at Quito where the visual and GS flight paths differed for good reason, but were not identified to the crews; these are unusual circumstances.
Generally use the aid as dictated by your approach – GS for inst, PAPI for visual. In the situation described (visual) use a bit of both. The GS should be kept within half a dot – this avoids any error from visual distortion of PAPI at longer ranges / hot hazy days (light bends more than the GS); use all of your resources – altitude/range, runway position in the windshield.
At lower altitudes / close in, the approach flight path should be assured by 100ft (stabilised approach checks at 500/300ft) thus ensuring an accurate threshold crossing altitude. In poor weather, then PAPI has other values; irrespective of alignment, any quickly changing lights can alert the crew of any sudden change in vertical speed – windshear (vertical or horizontal).
Much of the above comes with experience; thus it is important to observe and note the many parameters which go into the judgement of the flightpath during an approach. Whether you are monitoring the PF or the autos – neither will be perfect, but they should be good enough – within specified limits (SOPs). Build up a mental library of approach paths and the items which define them, then when the GS and PAPI are both u/s you have something to use as approach ‘guidance’ even if this situation has not been practiced previously.
You seek an ideal solution from a complex situation. If the ILS and PAPI ground installations are well harmonised and the aircraft GS/eye height is small, then the height at which there is any significant difference might be so low as not to be of interest (see ft’s post). However, very few things in aviation are ideal or definable with accuracy; with any difference between the systems it is unlikely that you will know if this is due to the ground installation or the aircraft, a normal or abnormal occurrence.
If the ground installation is non-standard this should be notified on the airport chart, but even this is not foolproof – see the recent accident at Quito where the visual and GS flight paths differed for good reason, but were not identified to the crews; these are unusual circumstances.
Generally use the aid as dictated by your approach – GS for inst, PAPI for visual. In the situation described (visual) use a bit of both. The GS should be kept within half a dot – this avoids any error from visual distortion of PAPI at longer ranges / hot hazy days (light bends more than the GS); use all of your resources – altitude/range, runway position in the windshield.
At lower altitudes / close in, the approach flight path should be assured by 100ft (stabilised approach checks at 500/300ft) thus ensuring an accurate threshold crossing altitude. In poor weather, then PAPI has other values; irrespective of alignment, any quickly changing lights can alert the crew of any sudden change in vertical speed – windshear (vertical or horizontal).
Much of the above comes with experience; thus it is important to observe and note the many parameters which go into the judgement of the flightpath during an approach. Whether you are monitoring the PF or the autos – neither will be perfect, but they should be good enough – within specified limits (SOPs). Build up a mental library of approach paths and the items which define them, then when the GS and PAPI are both u/s you have something to use as approach ‘guidance’ even if this situation has not been practiced previously.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PEI:
With respect: Your answer may be enlightened and accurate, if confusing. I'm teaching low houred ab-initio jet pilots. They want a simple rule with which to start their career. Is it A or B? My answer, being a simple fella, is that if the G/S is flight checked and approved, and if that is what the autopilot will follow when IMC, so thus you believe and accept it, why not do the same when visual?
In my mind that is a simple answer to the question at 500', "what shall I do?" Unfortunately, but the time I've explained your theory we are either half way down the Rwy or in the approach lights. Excuse the flippancy, but young guys need quick simple answers.
And that's before I even begin to wonder about dual PAPI installatons which do not agree with each other..
With respect: Your answer may be enlightened and accurate, if confusing. I'm teaching low houred ab-initio jet pilots. They want a simple rule with which to start their career. Is it A or B? My answer, being a simple fella, is that if the G/S is flight checked and approved, and if that is what the autopilot will follow when IMC, so thus you believe and accept it, why not do the same when visual?
In my mind that is a simple answer to the question at 500', "what shall I do?" Unfortunately, but the time I've explained your theory we are either half way down the Rwy or in the approach lights. Excuse the flippancy, but young guys need quick simple answers.
And that's before I even begin to wonder about dual PAPI installatons which do not agree with each other..
RAT 5, sorry if the elaborative answer did not meet your requirements. I belong to the ‘old school’ of training, which with the luxury of time and resource, aimed to teach the big picture, instil flexible thought, and lay the foundations of airmanship.
I sympathise with the training problems resulting from commercial constraints. The growing trend for simplicity and cost cutting has much to answer for, and unless the current training programs or operations can alleviate the training shortfalls, the simple dilemmas faced by your students will one day be opportunities for their accidents.
So forgive the minor rant over training – you, to days instructors, still have to cope.
Many safety problems appear to originate from lack of knowledge (historic or situation assessment) or the inability to associate this knowledge with a course of action in a situation (cognitive flexibility theory if you want the research). Some of the reasons (the principle reasons) for these shortfalls is oversimplification (time and resource constraint) and lack of variety when explaining situations – how to associate knowledge to situations other than in which it was taught – joined up thinking.
Now apply the issues above to the current discussion on PAPI. I would argue that while it’s safe to say ‘follow the PAPI’ for all visual approaches, this must be qualified by the potential problems (albeit small probability) of distortion, non alignment, or failure. Pilots must be taught that situations are not clear cut A or B; aviation involves complexity, quick and simple rarely exists, and often there is no one perfect solution so they have to be aware of alternative solutions and a flexible response.
I accept that A or B is satisfactory for the first lesson, but after that the subject must be developed and elaborated.
If you only have one lesson? Then the industry is in a very poor state.
Inexperienced pilots must be mentored by their Captains providing an expansion of knowledge during line operations. This is still feasible, but again commercial constraint and perhaps a greater risk, that of the new breed of Captains also lacking depth of training, really will begin to hurt the industry.
All this and it started with something simple as PAPI.
"what shall I do?" Where the aids don’t agree is an ideal situation for the student to learn about deciding themselves – ‘old school’ (needs some background knowledge). The training hints are:-
At longer range (before normal descent point) follow the GS. This can be associated with the need to be aware of safe altitudes during the approach, avoidance of black hole descent illusion, etc – debrief.
At closer range use the PAPI for visual approaches. However, if the GS / PAPI are still in error, follow the higher beam – safety first. If the error is not promulgated on the charts (giving a reasoned answer as to which one to follow), file a safety report because the beams should be close enough not to show such a disparity.
I sympathise with the training problems resulting from commercial constraints. The growing trend for simplicity and cost cutting has much to answer for, and unless the current training programs or operations can alleviate the training shortfalls, the simple dilemmas faced by your students will one day be opportunities for their accidents.
So forgive the minor rant over training – you, to days instructors, still have to cope.
Many safety problems appear to originate from lack of knowledge (historic or situation assessment) or the inability to associate this knowledge with a course of action in a situation (cognitive flexibility theory if you want the research). Some of the reasons (the principle reasons) for these shortfalls is oversimplification (time and resource constraint) and lack of variety when explaining situations – how to associate knowledge to situations other than in which it was taught – joined up thinking.
Now apply the issues above to the current discussion on PAPI. I would argue that while it’s safe to say ‘follow the PAPI’ for all visual approaches, this must be qualified by the potential problems (albeit small probability) of distortion, non alignment, or failure. Pilots must be taught that situations are not clear cut A or B; aviation involves complexity, quick and simple rarely exists, and often there is no one perfect solution so they have to be aware of alternative solutions and a flexible response.
I accept that A or B is satisfactory for the first lesson, but after that the subject must be developed and elaborated.
If you only have one lesson? Then the industry is in a very poor state.
Inexperienced pilots must be mentored by their Captains providing an expansion of knowledge during line operations. This is still feasible, but again commercial constraint and perhaps a greater risk, that of the new breed of Captains also lacking depth of training, really will begin to hurt the industry.
All this and it started with something simple as PAPI.
"what shall I do?" Where the aids don’t agree is an ideal situation for the student to learn about deciding themselves – ‘old school’ (needs some background knowledge). The training hints are:-
At longer range (before normal descent point) follow the GS. This can be associated with the need to be aware of safe altitudes during the approach, avoidance of black hole descent illusion, etc – debrief.
At closer range use the PAPI for visual approaches. However, if the GS / PAPI are still in error, follow the higher beam – safety first. If the error is not promulgated on the charts (giving a reasoned answer as to which one to follow), file a safety report because the beams should be close enough not to show such a disparity.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi PEI.
I too am of the old school and wish pilots were trained and capable of good airmanship thinking and capable a/c handling. Sadly there is too much trained monkey syndrom with everything written down. Flying seems more of memory test, learn by rote, rather than adapt and do what is best for the situation albeit in an SOP manner.
You discuss captains being mentors for the new guys: the fact is that in EU Loco's the mentoring captain may have only 3000hrs total & 4 years experience in one airline. He is a trained monkey passing on more nuts to the next generation.
Hence we need a simple answer to most questions. Many options are too confusing for some. Just look at the way FCOM's have been diluted. Only what a pilot needs to know. If he can't do anything about it then he doesn't need to know how it works. Land it and get it fixed.
Same with flight training. It's 100rs less to a frozen ATPL than it was 30 years ago. The next thing is an airline pilot's licence where most of the training will be in a simulator and not a Cherokee. It can be argued that you don't need to sail a dinghy to be a cruise liner captain, or drive a go-cart to be a trucker, but you can dilute training and the basics too much.
About the PAPI's, I still find it sad that it is considered by many to be a dodgy approach if there are no G/P aids. Whatever happened to Mk.1 eyeball. That works not matter what a/c you fly. It was a UK CAA requirement to fly non-PAPI approaches, day & night, to complete base training. I think that has gone and even the night requirement is not mandatory under JAR. Amazing!!
I too am of the old school and wish pilots were trained and capable of good airmanship thinking and capable a/c handling. Sadly there is too much trained monkey syndrom with everything written down. Flying seems more of memory test, learn by rote, rather than adapt and do what is best for the situation albeit in an SOP manner.
You discuss captains being mentors for the new guys: the fact is that in EU Loco's the mentoring captain may have only 3000hrs total & 4 years experience in one airline. He is a trained monkey passing on more nuts to the next generation.
Hence we need a simple answer to most questions. Many options are too confusing for some. Just look at the way FCOM's have been diluted. Only what a pilot needs to know. If he can't do anything about it then he doesn't need to know how it works. Land it and get it fixed.
Same with flight training. It's 100rs less to a frozen ATPL than it was 30 years ago. The next thing is an airline pilot's licence where most of the training will be in a simulator and not a Cherokee. It can be argued that you don't need to sail a dinghy to be a cruise liner captain, or drive a go-cart to be a trucker, but you can dilute training and the basics too much.
About the PAPI's, I still find it sad that it is considered by many to be a dodgy approach if there are no G/P aids. Whatever happened to Mk.1 eyeball. That works not matter what a/c you fly. It was a UK CAA requirement to fly non-PAPI approaches, day & night, to complete base training. I think that has gone and even the night requirement is not mandatory under JAR. Amazing!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Papi
If you fly into Nice you'll have come across this one.
The Papi's on 4L are set for Cat D aircraft. So if you are in a shorter aircraft like a 737-600 you will fly the ILS perfectly and the papi's will be 3R/1W.
As someone said before this is a function of the papi lights being deeper.
Therefore the 2W/2R at Nice would land you deep if followed in anything shorter than the 747.
Aéroport de Nice Cote d'Azur - FAQ, Saleya, PAPI
The Papi's on 4L are set for Cat D aircraft. So if you are in a shorter aircraft like a 737-600 you will fly the ILS perfectly and the papi's will be 3R/1W.
As someone said before this is a function of the papi lights being deeper.
Therefore the 2W/2R at Nice would land you deep if followed in anything shorter than the 747.
Aéroport de Nice Cote d'Azur - FAQ, Saleya, PAPI
