PAPIs
 

Just a quick question for you folks:
Is PAPI/VASI classed as runway lighting or approach lighting (or neither)?

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.

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.)

They fall into the bracket of "Approach Slope Indicator" so neither approach lighting or runway lighting, ICAO Annex 14/ UK CAP 168

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.

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

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!!
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6615d41b03.gif

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 casa by case basis.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2f94ed2456.png

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.

"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?

Sorry it is my own conclusion based on tables & data, should have expressed it differently.

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.

Slightly off topic but....

Do Jeppessen plates specify what the eye height of the PAPIs are set to? Aerad used to have it brackets next to the PAPI symbol on the plate.