ALSF-2 vs MALSR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALSF-2 vs MALSR
ALSF-2 vs MALSR
MALSR: Medium-intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights
ALSF-2: Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights configuration 2
Should this type of information be on RNAV visual charts?
From the chart and night approach:
MALSR: Medium-intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights
ALSF-2: Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights configuration 2
Should this type of information be on RNAV visual charts?
From the chart and night approach:
Only half a speed-brake
Why are the boxes in the header swapped left-right?
Dear Bernoulli, Lilienthal and all the DaVinci's saints, if I had looked on those one night
... well behind my body clock, and
... with low arousal levels
... through bifocal glasses adopted to instrument's distance but not really reading chart
... knowing from ATIS the LEFT one is closed and under no circumstances must be landed upon
... in a
cockpit lighting of a beaten a320
... I can imagine the mental plan setting in to align with the one RIGHT of the predominant CAT-II installation
Dear Bernoulli, Lilienthal and all the DaVinci's saints, if I had looked on those one night
... well behind my body clock, and
... with low arousal levels
... through bifocal glasses adopted to instrument's distance but not really reading chart
... knowing from ATIS the LEFT one is closed and under no circumstances must be landed upon
... in a
cockpit lighting of a beaten a320... I can imagine the mental plan setting in to align with the one RIGHT of the predominant CAT-II installation
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@flightdetent
this is the chart for the ILS. the visual approaches don't have any depiction of the approach lighting systems. at least the FAA ones don't.
so while it's kinda stupid that it is swapped ... it's because the approach plate is for 28R and a sidestep to 28L is available
this is the chart for the ILS. the visual approaches don't have any depiction of the approach lighting systems. at least the FAA ones don't.
so while it's kinda stupid that it is swapped ... it's because the approach plate is for 28R and a sidestep to 28L is available
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, it is the approach for 28R...just shows you the difference.
exactly my point...notice my question?
this is the chart for the ILS. the visual approaches don't have any depiction of the approach lighting systems. at least the FAA ones don't.
Should this type of information be on RNAV visual charts?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@underfire
just replying to flightdetent who (i think) misread the situation. it sounded to me like he was arguing it was easy to make the mistake made at SFO because the approach lighting systems are swapped left to right on the chart while the actual chart used in the event doesn't have those swapped boxes.
and yes i get your point approach lighting should be on the visual charts. but i didn't even want to comment on that because why shouldn't it be on there is a far better question i have no answer to.
to be fair the jeppesen airport diagrams have the approach lighting depicted and i assume that were the charts used? (ofc one does not necessarily look at an airport diagram when briefing the approach)
regarding FAA airport diagrams approach lighting would sure be a nice touch. (only charts i normally look at)
one could even think about putting a day and a night photograph made from the cockpit while on approach into the digital plates. putting sequenced flashers at the end of ANY (active) runway was a suggestion i made in the thread discussing the event in question, pilots would sure get used to being reluctant to land somewhere without sequenced flashers. there are tons of possible improvements. red X to make this particular taxiway less attractive for landing pilots is another possibility. but i digress.
just replying to flightdetent who (i think) misread the situation. it sounded to me like he was arguing it was easy to make the mistake made at SFO because the approach lighting systems are swapped left to right on the chart while the actual chart used in the event doesn't have those swapped boxes.
and yes i get your point approach lighting should be on the visual charts. but i didn't even want to comment on that because why shouldn't it be on there is a far better question i have no answer to.
to be fair the jeppesen airport diagrams have the approach lighting depicted and i assume that were the charts used? (ofc one does not necessarily look at an airport diagram when briefing the approach)
regarding FAA airport diagrams approach lighting would sure be a nice touch. (only charts i normally look at)
one could even think about putting a day and a night photograph made from the cockpit while on approach into the digital plates. putting sequenced flashers at the end of ANY (active) runway was a suggestion i made in the thread discussing the event in question, pilots would sure get used to being reluctant to land somewhere without sequenced flashers. there are tons of possible improvements. red X to make this particular taxiway less attractive for landing pilots is another possibility. but i digress.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hop,
No worries. The RNAV visual mentioned is a special, so the required sim would take care of this issue. Unfortunately, the sim has not kept up with the closure (and the red X) but suffice to say it does cover the difference in approach lighting. One would note that for the procedure mentioned, there is no left sidestep, only one procedure.
I think FD did understand, was just poking a bit of fun at a recent situation.
Cheers!
EDIT: Just having been at the sim, I am a bit surprised that there has been no mention anywhere of the flightdeck size, on aircraft that have an ever increasing range, that were not designed for that long of flighttime. 3 hrs in the sim is enough....Look at these ER and 'max' aircraft and the range, vs no increase in flight deck accomodations. Perhaps a new thread.
No worries. The RNAV visual mentioned is a special, so the required sim would take care of this issue. Unfortunately, the sim has not kept up with the closure (and the red X) but suffice to say it does cover the difference in approach lighting. One would note that for the procedure mentioned, there is no left sidestep, only one procedure.
I think FD did understand, was just poking a bit of fun at a recent situation.
Cheers!
EDIT: Just having been at the sim, I am a bit surprised that there has been no mention anywhere of the flightdeck size, on aircraft that have an ever increasing range, that were not designed for that long of flighttime. 3 hrs in the sim is enough....Look at these ER and 'max' aircraft and the range, vs no increase in flight deck accomodations. Perhaps a new thread.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just because you've done a procedure in the simulator doesn't mean you remember how the lighting is configured exactly, does it?
or what do you mean with "the sim would take care of this issue"?
or what do you mean with "the sim would take care of this issue"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again, this is not a public procedure, it is a procedure to which the airline and drivers have to be validated to use.
If one cant remember approach lighting, or know where to look it up, instead of trying to land on the taxiway, perhaps one should not be driving.
If one cant remember approach lighting, or know where to look it up, instead of trying to land on the taxiway, perhaps one should not be driving.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the approach lighting should be on the public visual charts it should be on every approach of the visual variety in my opinion.
don't really see much of a difference. you really think a typical pilot reading the fms bridge visual approach plate is much different from a typical pilot reading the visual approach plate?
the second part about looking up the lighting could be done just as easily for the public visual approaches you are talking about. pull up the ils approach plate for the intended runway and voila.
and i didn't even say the non-existence of the approach lighting on the chart would excuse almost landing on a taxiway.
but back then most people said approach lighting should be briefed. well if it's on the approach plate then it's much more likely not to be forgotten. i guess you found one very easy improvement that could avoid a repeat. maybe the ntsb will even suggest such a change
don't really see much of a difference. you really think a typical pilot reading the fms bridge visual approach plate is much different from a typical pilot reading the visual approach plate?
the second part about looking up the lighting could be done just as easily for the public visual approaches you are talking about. pull up the ils approach plate for the intended runway and voila.
and i didn't even say the non-existence of the approach lighting on the chart would excuse almost landing on a taxiway.
but back then most people said approach lighting should be briefed. well if it's on the approach plate then it's much more likely not to be forgotten. i guess you found one very easy improvement that could avoid a repeat. maybe the ntsb will even suggest such a change
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you go into charting, there are just as many arguments either way on how and what should be represented. I am not sure why both are there, or in that particular order, but I am certain there is a history.
I think so....a cheap and easy way to depict the correct lighting for the approach.
i guess you found one very easy improvement that could avoid a repeat.
