2 NDB approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Russia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our experienced pilots always tell me about complex navigation. That includes not only the ILS beam usage during approach but any other navigation means that you have to control your position on the descent trajectiory.
Who knows weather there is a true ILS signal you capture or not!
Who knows weather there is a true ILS signal you capture or not!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The minimum obstacle clearance for NPA is greater than margin and also is based on wider protection areas. With regard to obstacle distance (my generic term) a go around on a NPA DA (no additionals) is safer than GA on an ILS as was always the case - Doc 8168 vol I and II reveal.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway
Age: 42
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pensador: The pilots know wether they have tuned the correct ILS or not by making sure they have tuned the correct frequency and then identify the station by confirming the station identifier on that frequency with the identifier on the approach procedure.
-If I understood your post correctly
-If I understood your post correctly
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway
Age: 42
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly the GS intercept altitude until intercepting the GS, crosschecking your altitude against the approachplate. I.E. on this approach: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1004/00924IL35.PDF (ILS35 to KLAW) if you are on the correct GS beam, your altitude should read 2298ft when passing the OM.
An instructor I flew with a couple of times during primary flight training had experienced false glideslopes once when descending ONTO the GS instead of intercepting it from the GS intercept altitude. He was waaaaay above the 2298ft when passing the OM on the above mentioned approach.
(To explain excactly what I mean... the small font numbers close to the FAF-symbol is the altitude of the point where the GS intersects the FAF DME and/or OM
Other considerations?
An instructor I flew with a couple of times during primary flight training had experienced false glideslopes once when descending ONTO the GS instead of intercepting it from the GS intercept altitude. He was waaaaay above the 2298ft when passing the OM on the above mentioned approach.
(To explain excactly what I mean... the small font numbers close to the FAF-symbol is the altitude of the point where the GS intersects the FAF DME and/or OM
Other considerations?
Moderator
experienced false glideslopes
I inadvertently set up a situation in a 737 simulator some years ago (which the crew, unfortunately, managed to blunder/stumble into) where the autopilot merrily and quite cheerfully intercepted a false localiser signal. Interestingly, the crew realised that something was not quite right .. but it still took them a frightening period of time before the penny dropped.
Until the jungle drums got the message to all and sundry, I was able to reconstruct the situation for the training benefit of a reasonable number of crews ..
Message is to use the ILS entry keyhole positively and every time. Shortcuts might well prove to be direct to the smoking hole in the ground.
It's well worth a read of the Air New Zealand B767 fright at Apia ..
I inadvertently set up a situation in a 737 simulator some years ago (which the crew, unfortunately, managed to blunder/stumble into) where the autopilot merrily and quite cheerfully intercepted a false localiser signal. Interestingly, the crew realised that something was not quite right .. but it still took them a frightening period of time before the penny dropped.
Until the jungle drums got the message to all and sundry, I was able to reconstruct the situation for the training benefit of a reasonable number of crews ..
Message is to use the ILS entry keyhole positively and every time. Shortcuts might well prove to be direct to the smoking hole in the ground.
It's well worth a read of the Air New Zealand B767 fright at Apia ..
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
False glideslope capture:
Monitor ground speed and anticipate ROD based on the glide requirement. Does it look right? How does altitude look against the DME (the old 300 feet/nm on a 3 degree etc..)? How does altitude compare at the check altitude?
If something is amiss either: Check with ATC, initiate a go-around or if both pilots have confirmed that there is a glide slope issue and the aircraft is no danger and within tolerances at that point, then use raw data, assume LLZ only and use plate info to manually execute the approach
bearing in mind the new MDA.
Depends on your SOPs of course.
Monitor ground speed and anticipate ROD based on the glide requirement. Does it look right? How does altitude look against the DME (the old 300 feet/nm on a 3 degree etc..)? How does altitude compare at the check altitude?
If something is amiss either: Check with ATC, initiate a go-around or if both pilots have confirmed that there is a glide slope issue and the aircraft is no danger and within tolerances at that point, then use raw data, assume LLZ only and use plate info to manually execute the approach
bearing in mind the new MDA.Depends on your SOPs of course.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LLLK
Many thanks for the link it explains the issue much better and more convincingly than I did.
Rudderrudderrat
I am sorry, but I cannot explain why it refers to JAR-OPS and has a DA but as the link that LLLK provided, there may be issues with Jeppesen minimas. I am not sure if the same is true of AERAD charts.
Many thanks for the link it explains the issue much better and more convincingly than I did.
Rudderrudderrat
I am sorry, but I cannot explain why it refers to JAR-OPS and has a DA but as the link that LLLK provided, there may be issues with Jeppesen minimas. I am not sure if the same is true of AERAD charts.
