Less than 3° glideslope.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 39
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less than 3° glideslope.
I was wondering what's the advantage/purpose of having a less then 3° ILS GS or PAPI. I have seen a PAPI of 2.7° in Zakinthos (LGZA) RWY34 and ILS G/S and PAPI in Istanbul Ataturk (LTBA) I believe RWY36R.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe it's got something to do with the view of the runway you get flying some military ac with different aerodynamic characteristics concerning AOA etc or maybe a flatter approach is better for them because they barely flare on landing
brindisi also has one of those 2,5° ILS'es....
brindisi also has one of those 2,5° ILS'es....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3 degree powered approach has become a standard arising from many years of experience. Any skilfull pilot will readily recognise a small deviation from 3 degrees and endeavour to regain that angle. It sets up a pilot with a standard view of a runway and an established expectation of all of those intuitive/trained control inputs to achieve a smooth touchdown and rollout.
The only acceptable variation should be related to terrain clearance during an instrument approach. Can't think of a good reason for having an approach angle less than 3 degrees unless it relates to spool up time for particular engines.
The only acceptable variation should be related to terrain clearance during an instrument approach. Can't think of a good reason for having an approach angle less than 3 degrees unless it relates to spool up time for particular engines.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution should be advised using glidepaths of less than 3 degrees, with large wide-body aircraft.
The threshold crossing height will be lower, and the main landing gear might well be rather close to the frangible approach light bits, as a result.
Automatic approach/land ops especially.
For example, the standard body L1011 is limited to a minimum TCH of 42 feet, for automatic A/L ops.
And yes, before anyone asks, these aeroplanes still roll-on smoothly during these automatic approach/land ops.
Nothing finer.
Now, back to normal programming...
The threshold crossing height will be lower, and the main landing gear might well be rather close to the frangible approach light bits, as a result.
Automatic approach/land ops especially.
For example, the standard body L1011 is limited to a minimum TCH of 42 feet, for automatic A/L ops.
And yes, before anyone asks, these aeroplanes still roll-on smoothly during these automatic approach/land ops.
Nothing finer.
Now, back to normal programming...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with first reply, it is a miltary requirement for older generation fighter jets. I believe the UK RAF have/had some 2.5 degree ones that have progressively been updated to 3 degrees as the older fighters have retired or been replaced by ones capable of using a 3 degree glideslope.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm I wonder why Luqa, Malta (LMML) has a 2.85 degree glide on Rwy14. Seems a strange number to pick. Sure enough this used to be RAF Luqa, but I think before the times of military jet aircraft. The approach takes you straight over the heart of the very built up island too... ??
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original ICAO standard ILS were based upon 2.5 to 2.75 degrees. This suited jets with slow spool up times and thus higher power needed to maintain the angle. VASIS were standardised to these angles back around the late Sixties.
Following usual pensioners noise complaints under glide paths the Sydney (Australia) runway 07 ILS was raised to three degrees giving extra height over the outer marker beacon. Raising the GP to three degrees made almost no difference to the noise foot-print but it made the local politicians happy that something had been done to counter the complaints. ICAO thought what a good idea and three degrees was adopted as the standard. In Australia it cost a lot of tax payers money to then standardise the remaining ILS and VASIS around this vast continent. I know because I flogged thousands of miles in the calibration flight DC3 as part of the job.
Again in the Fifties with introduction of fighter jets such as the Mirage into the Royal Australian Air Force the RAAF continued with a landing policy of touching down at the "piano keys" for fighters. This permitted more runway available in case of brake-parachute or aircraft brake failure due combat damage I suppose. I can only guess the current lower approach angle PAPI or VASIS mentioned in the first post is a relic of the old days where piano key touch down was considered the epitome of good airmanship (rightly or wrongly, depending on your viewpoint)
Following usual pensioners noise complaints under glide paths the Sydney (Australia) runway 07 ILS was raised to three degrees giving extra height over the outer marker beacon. Raising the GP to three degrees made almost no difference to the noise foot-print but it made the local politicians happy that something had been done to counter the complaints. ICAO thought what a good idea and three degrees was adopted as the standard. In Australia it cost a lot of tax payers money to then standardise the remaining ILS and VASIS around this vast continent. I know because I flogged thousands of miles in the calibration flight DC3 as part of the job.
Again in the Fifties with introduction of fighter jets such as the Mirage into the Royal Australian Air Force the RAAF continued with a landing policy of touching down at the "piano keys" for fighters. This permitted more runway available in case of brake-parachute or aircraft brake failure due combat damage I suppose. I can only guess the current lower approach angle PAPI or VASIS mentioned in the first post is a relic of the old days where piano key touch down was considered the epitome of good airmanship (rightly or wrongly, depending on your viewpoint)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 39
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx for the replies. Zakinthos doesn't have any military activities anymore, but maybe the airport was built in the time that those GP's were the standard. The runway looks that old anyway 
.
.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vintage Prop?
I'd also have thought 411A would have noted that older piston aircraft have trouble with the 3deg slope; 2.5 is ideal. We cause quite a hassle if we have to do an ILS as the drag required slows us down [flap/gear limits.]
G'day
G'day
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operated into Murcia last night. 2.8 degree G/P. Major Spanish military base; lots of fast jets and arrestor barriers at the end of each runway. Assumed the non standard G/P was due to the military hardware
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 1999 I flew into a few RAF bases in a Seneca. I asked wht they had PAPI's at 2.5deg.
I was told that it was in case a Tornado had a failure which meant that it would have its wing swung all the way back.
Seemed a reasonable explanation at the time.
It would also hold good for flapless landings.
I was told that it was in case a Tornado had a failure which meant that it would have its wing swung all the way back.
Seemed a reasonable explanation at the time.
It would also hold good for flapless landings.
Last edited by renard; 26th Aug 2008 at 18:44. Reason: to add a bit more info
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution should be advised using glidepaths of less than 3 degrees, with large wide-body aircraft.
The threshold crossing height will be lower, and the main landing gear might well be rather close to the frangible approach light bits, as a result.
Automatic approach/land ops especially.
The threshold crossing height will be lower, and the main landing gear might well be rather close to the frangible approach light bits, as a result.
Automatic approach/land ops especially.
For short CAT I runways, the 15 meters shrink to 12.
In a friendly note, ICAO points out that the assumed maximum vertical distance from the GP antenna to the path of the lowest point of the aircraft is 5.8 meters. More than that - beware.
Reference: ICAO Annex X.
I visit an an airport where they have a 2.86 degree ILS at one end and a 3.25 at the other every once in a while. Multiple approaches on the 2.86 degree followed by a direct switch to the 3.25 makes for an interesting change of perspective!
Last edited by ft; 27th Aug 2008 at 05:23.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question: WHY are GS specified as X.X°, instead of x.x% ?? Percent, being a dimensionless number (albeit with a scalar of 100), would make approach calculations MUCH easier. This is one area in which the civil engineers have it right!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what happens with the so called steep approaches? i.e. EGLC has GS 5.5º, or ENTC has GS 4.0º...
I've been trying to find a good definition of what you should consider as a steep approach without any luck. I just found on the brand new EU OPS that you have to establish procedures and get some kind of approval from the authorities for glide slopes > 4.5º. But once again, there is no definition available, unless you consider that if they speak for approvals if the GS > 4.5º, then no approval is required for GS < 4.5º...
But aircarft and crew qualification is required if you intend to use ENTC ILS to rwy 01 due to the steep angle!!!! What happens with those GS between that "standard" of 3º and 4.5º?
I've been trying to find a good definition of what you should consider as a steep approach without any luck. I just found on the brand new EU OPS that you have to establish procedures and get some kind of approval from the authorities for glide slopes > 4.5º. But once again, there is no definition available, unless you consider that if they speak for approvals if the GS > 4.5º, then no approval is required for GS < 4.5º...
But aircarft and crew qualification is required if you intend to use ENTC ILS to rwy 01 due to the steep angle!!!! What happens with those GS between that "standard" of 3º and 4.5º?
Last edited by iwd; 11th Sep 2008 at 16:59.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somerset England
Age: 62
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main advantage of the 2.5 degree PAR glideslope at EGDG (Newquay) is the lower DA/DH, on occasions if needed we will use the 2.5 degree glide in preference to the 3 degree option.
This is for Turbo prop ops, no idea what the jet guys ops manuals say for EGDG.
This is for Turbo prop ops, no idea what the jet guys ops manuals say for EGDG.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA USA
Age: 61
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.05 Glide slope
I know of several ILS approaches with glide slopes other than the standard 3 degrees. The lowest of which I am aware is the ILS to runway 25 in Kodiak, Alaska (ADQ or PADQ) with a gs of 2.05 degrees. This is due to terrain, and the approach/missed approach criteria (TERPS). In addition, due to prevailing winds and often low ceilings, the advantage of a lower than standard GS is that it allows you to get to a lower altitude (below prevailing ceilings) before the missed approach point. Because of the terrain in Kodiak, the MAP is farther out.
In Ketchikan Alaska (KTN or PAKT) the glide slope for the ILS runway 11 is 3.61 degrees, although I believe both Kodiak and Ketchikan are tailored approaches sepcific to Alaska Airlines.
In Ketchikan Alaska (KTN or PAKT) the glide slope for the ILS runway 11 is 3.61 degrees, although I believe both Kodiak and Ketchikan are tailored approaches sepcific to Alaska Airlines.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what happens with the so called steep approaches? i.e. EGLC has GS 5.5º, or ENTC has GS 4.0º...
I've been trying to find a good definition of what you should consider as a steep approach without any luck. I just found on the brand new EU OPS that you have to establish procedures and get some kind of approval from the authorities for glide slopes > 4.5º. But once again, there is no definition available, unless you consider that if they speak for approvals if the GS > 4.5º, then no approval is required for GS < 4.5º... But aircarft and crew qualification is required if you intend to use ENTC ILS to rwy 01 due to the steep angle!!!! What happens with those GS between that "standard" of 3º and 4.5º?
I've been trying to find a good definition of what you should consider as a steep approach without any luck. I just found on the brand new EU OPS that you have to establish procedures and get some kind of approval from the authorities for glide slopes > 4.5º. But once again, there is no definition available, unless you consider that if they speak for approvals if the GS > 4.5º, then no approval is required for GS < 4.5º...
But aircarft and crew qualification is required if you intend to use ENTC ILS to rwy 01 due to the steep angle!!!! What happens with those GS between that "standard" of 3º and 4.5º?Below 3.5 degrees are considered "normal" approaches and the standard certification testing set out in, for example, AC25-7A, and the standard regulations in Part 25 (or whatever) are consider to apply and be sufficient.
Between 3.5 and 4.5 are considered to be "increased glideslope" approaches. For approval of an aircraft to conduct these approaches at an aircraft certification level, Transport Canada has a "Working Note" (I think it's #12, but I'll stand to be corrected there) which specifies certain avionics tests be performed. However, it is assumed that the basic handling and performance3 approval is adequate - unless the OEM is trying to claim credit for the steeper GS in some fashion (usually landing "air distance" or dispersion) in which case corresponding handling or performance tests are required.
Above 4.5 is considered a "steep approach"; the rules here are imposed by "Special Condition" on an aircraft - by - aircraft basis - generally a new Special Condition starts with the last one and makes minor changes if required. So there are an informal set of rules, but technically there is no standard rule. A full set of handling and performance trials are generally required, in addition to avionics type testing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in PANS-OPS, for Precision Approaches it states:
1.4.8.8.3.1.1 Procedures involving glide paths greater than 3.5° or any angle when the nominal rate of descent (Vat for the aircraft type x´ the sine of the glide path angle) exceeds 5 m/sec (1 000 ft/min), are non-standard. They require the following:
a) increase of height loss margin (which may be aircraft type specific);
b) adjustment of the origin of the missed approach surface;
c) adjustment of the slope of the W surface;
d) re-survey of obstacles; and
e) the application of related operational constraints.
1.4.8.8.3.1.1 Procedures involving glide paths greater than 3.5° or any angle when the nominal rate of descent (Vat for the aircraft type x´ the sine of the glide path angle) exceeds 5 m/sec (1 000 ft/min), are non-standard. They require the following:
a) increase of height loss margin (which may be aircraft type specific);
b) adjustment of the origin of the missed approach surface;
c) adjustment of the slope of the W surface;
d) re-survey of obstacles; and
e) the application of related operational constraints.