Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Offset ILS Cat 2

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Offset ILS Cat 2

Old 19th Sep 2011, 07:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Romania
Age: 39
Posts: 28
Offset ILS Cat 2

At the end of August a new temporary chart was published for LRBS ILS 07. The new final approach course is 069. Runway heading remained the same 070 degrees. Minima is 100ft RA and RVR 300 m.

Note: Boeing states in the FCM that autoland shouldn't be attempted if the final approach is differnt from the runway heading.

QUestion: Is it legal/ possible to fly a coupled single channel down to the minimums, followed by a manual flare and landing? Should an increment to the minimums be made?

Thanks for your help !
B737-pilot is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 08:43
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 297
C'mon - it's only 1 degree. Probably a rounding error each way. There are many airports around the world where autoland is permitted with a 1 degree difference between QDM & LOC heading.

Haven't seen any autoland runways with greater than 1 degree though.

Interestingly, the wording in my 744 FCTM is slightly different and says

"Autoland should not be attempted unless the final approach course path is aligned with the runway centreline. If the localiser beam is offset from the centreline the AFDS ROLLOUT mode may cause the aircraft to depart the runway."

Also - not sure about the 737, but should you be flying to Cat II minima with a single autpilot engaged? Might be a 737 thing, but in my experience on 767 and 744 you would have at least 2 autopilots engaged for Cat II minima.
esreverlluf is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 08:45
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Above & Beyond
Posts: 323
Is it legal/ possible to fly a coupled single channel down to the minimums, followed by a manual flare and landing? Should an increment to the minimums be made?

Not all landings are autoland my friend..so the answer is yes to your question, pilots do fly the plane

Any final course within 30 degrees of the runway heading is classed as a straight in approach (FAA).
punk666 is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 11:14
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Any final course within 30 degrees of the runway heading is classed as a straight in approach (FAA).
But straight-in is opposed to circling, not opposed to offset, which was in question.
bfisk is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 12:03
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 994
Many aircraft manual land from a CAT II autopilot controlled approach, ie. ATR, 146.

However, if you haven't been trained in a Cat II ManLand, then you shouldn't - You would be stepping outside your operators approval...
Cough is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 17:14
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,292

Any final course within 30 degrees of the runway heading is classed as a straight in approach (FAA).
Not exactly. That is the case for VOR, NDB, and LDA.

15 degrees is the maximum for RNAV (LNAV or LP only) for CAT C and D.

CAT I ILS is limited to a 3 degree offset.

CAT II and III, zero offset.

Because the runway magnetic bearing sources used by chart makers can be less than sterling, we got the FAA to publish the actual offset of any ILS by the exact amount.

For ILS Jepp publishes the official offset in the ILS frequency box.

For RNAV with vertical guidance and RNP AR the offset is published in the briefing strip. RNP AR with any amount of RF legs in the final segment is not permitted any offset.

Can't speak for the myriad iterations of PANS-OPS. There is no substitute for a good airline technical department that has direct access to all of the aviation authorities for destination airports.
aterpster is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 18:25
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 610
AS observed there are many airports where there is a degree change between heading and course. At minima of 100 ft, how much off the centre line is a 1 degree offset when the ILS Antenna is 300m in! considering the autoland criteria can be xx metres either side of the centreline for certification I think this is not an issue.
Avenger is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2011, 20:00
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,025
Avenger, the LOC antenna might be > 6000ft away at the far end of the runway, thus the offset might be significant.
However, the accuracy issue is the physical offset between the LOC alignment and the runway direction, not the reported direction. Thus if the antenna is in the correct position – runway centerline, and the beam centre is ‘electronically’ stable, then there shouldn’t be many problems.
safetypee is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2011, 01:15
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 992
Anyone looked at LHR 27 runways recently? No way the QDM is 271.
mustafagander is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2011, 03:17
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,292
The course/headinngs will be determined by adding/subtracting magnetic variation to the great circle bearing calculation.

The final course calculation and runway bearing calculations will result in different great circle true bearings, and slightly different variation values - rounding can result in different values.

Howeve, I agree that a degree (excuse pun) of pragmatism needs to be applied, and the course/headings should be adjusted to the same value - if only to cut down the number of 'phone calls and forum threads....
reynoldsno1 is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2011, 01:33
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
that's for the airbus:
Some Airbus SA and LR aircraft continue to fly a number of years with ADIRS part numbers fitted with out-of-date magnetic variation tables. If the ADIRS magnetic variation differs by more than 2 ° or 3 ° (depending of aircraft type) compared to the airport current magnetic variation, the lateral performance of the automatic landing and rollout is significantly affected, which prevents from using the automatic landing system on these airports. Airbus publishes in the FCOM for each year, the list of airports where automatic landing is no more authorized with these ADIRS part numbers.
Seen that numerous times with 1 degree difference between the chart and the box and performed on those RWY's autolands without problems.
9.G is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.