PAPIs
I would say, “neither”.
My rational is that the “required visual reference” to continue below a Cat1 DH, or NPA MDA, is quite a long list, which includes (inter alia) Runway lights, Approach lights and PAPIs/VASIs (Visual glide slope Indicator).
So, if these elements are listed as separate items, I think that they cannot be grouped together.
Just my humble opinion.
My rational is that the “required visual reference” to continue below a Cat1 DH, or NPA MDA, is quite a long list, which includes (inter alia) Runway lights, Approach lights and PAPIs/VASIs (Visual glide slope Indicator).
So, if these elements are listed as separate items, I think that they cannot be grouped together.
Just my humble opinion.
Expand the acronyms and you get your answer:
Precision Approach Path Indicators and Visual Approach Slope Indicators. They are parts of an overall approach lighting system that also includes approach lights as such. And one only uses them when on approach.
FAA regulates them with other approach lights (including REILs) - with a separate section for airfield lights (beacons, runway lights, taxiway lights, obstruction lights, illuminated wind indicators, etc.)
Precision Approach Path Indicators and Visual Approach Slope Indicators. They are parts of an overall approach lighting system that also includes approach lights as such. And one only uses them when on approach.
FAA regulates them with other approach lights (including REILs) - with a separate section for airfield lights (beacons, runway lights, taxiway lights, obstruction lights, illuminated wind indicators, etc.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for responding.
The reason I ask is that one of my ATPL students was given a question relating to ILS minima at Tromso for a Category D ac.
The PAPI were inoperative, and he had to select the minimum legal RVR for the approach.
The reason I ask is that one of my ATPL students was given a question relating to ILS minima at Tromso for a Category D ac.
The PAPI were inoperative, and he had to select the minimum legal RVR for the approach.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 'tween posts
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my 2 cents
Approach lights are part of an "instrument approach" system, thus your minima changes with / without approach lights.
PAPI / VASI are part of "Visual Approach" aid as such does not affect Instrument approach minima
PAPI / VASI are part of "Visual Approach" aid as such does not affect Instrument approach minima
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOC 4444.
7.15.3 Approach lighting.
Note.— Approach lighting includes such lights as simple approach lighting systems, precision approach lighting systems, visual approach slope indicator systems, circling guidance lights, approach light beacons and runway alignment indicators.
7.15.3 Approach lighting.
Note.— Approach lighting includes such lights as simple approach lighting systems, precision approach lighting systems, visual approach slope indicator systems, circling guidance lights, approach light beacons and runway alignment indicators.
Having done a bit more digging, ICAO Annex 14 does indeed class both PAPI and VASI as "Visual Approach Slope Indicator Systems", but if my interpretation of the relevant chapter is correct, they are not formally part of Approach Lighting.
I therefore tend to agree with those who suggest that PAPI is not part of an `ALS`. Is it, in fact, solely intended as a visual approach aid and therefore would not affect instrument approach RVR minima if it were to be inoperative?
Further opinions on this would be gratefully received!!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A `Precision Approach Lighting System`, which I believe can be to CAT 1,2 or 3 standards, is something completely different to the PAPIs (Precision Approach Path Indicator) as far as I am aware.
Having done a bit more digging, ICAO Annex 14 does indeed class both PAPI and VASI as "Visual Approach Slope Indicator Systems", but if my interpretation of the relevant chapter is correct, they are not formally part of Approach Lighting.
I therefore tend to agree with those who suggest that PAPI is not part of an `ALS`. Is it, in fact, solely intended as a visual approach aid and therefore would not affect instrument approach RVR minima if it were to be inoperative?
Further opinions on this would be gratefully received!!
Having done a bit more digging, ICAO Annex 14 does indeed class both PAPI and VASI as "Visual Approach Slope Indicator Systems", but if my interpretation of the relevant chapter is correct, they are not formally part of Approach Lighting.
I therefore tend to agree with those who suggest that PAPI is not part of an `ALS`. Is it, in fact, solely intended as a visual approach aid and therefore would not affect instrument approach RVR minima if it were to be inoperative?
Further opinions on this would be gratefully received!!
PAPI inop does not affect precision approach minima, unless specifically stated on the IAP itself on a casa by case basis.
.Uh....no.
Precision Approach PATH Indicator.
They are a Visual Glide Slope Indicator which can be VASI or PAPI systems.
Important to get your nomenclature right.
Often a VGSI is not coincident with an ILS glideslope and is marked as such on the approach plate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Agree, furthermore from the same page the following is outlined.
PAPI inop does not affect precision approach minima, unless specifically stated on the IAP itself on a case by case basis".
Sorry `Sonic`; but where EXACTLY did you see this stated?
PAPI inop does not affect precision approach minima, unless specifically stated on the IAP itself on a case by case basis".
Sorry `Sonic`; but where EXACTLY did you see this stated?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree. On some approaches a Jepp note states i.e.
“VGSI and ILS glide path not coincident (VGSI angle 3.00, TCH 74)”
so I don’t see logically how a VASI/PAPI can limit precision approach minima.
