length of ILS approach
One for the planners.. What determins the length of an approach slope of an ILS approach?. Apart from the hieght above the ground from which it is started? I am looking in particular at EGLF, rwy 24 is 4.7d and 06 is 6d. I can sort of understand why 24 is short (proximity of LTMA to the east), but why is 06 longer ?
|
I am not understanding your question.
Both approach plates show a final approach fix at 4.4 DME and both have a 3.5 degree glideslope which is a little steeper then the standard 3 degrees. https://www.platinumairways.org/files/EGLFCharts.pdf |
I would assume you can find the answer to your question in Doc 8168 PANS-OPS.
|
Those charts are very interesting, but are 6 years old. Latest Jepps show 6 and 4.7d
|
Originally Posted by Banana Joe
(Post 10911389)
I would assume you can find the answer to your question in Doc 8168 PANS-OPS.
|
Doc 8168 PANS-OPS simly states it can be between 3 and 10 miles for a 3 degree slope. IT does not say what determines the length of the final segment. EGLF is 3.5 degrees for both approaches.
|
What about
Vol. II Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures Section 4. Arrival and approach procedures Chapter 4. Intermediate approach segment 4.2 Altitude/height selection possibly Chapter 5. Final approach segment |
The length of the intermediate approach segment shall not be ... less than 9.3 km (5.0 NM)
To fit a least the minimum I.A.S in tight airspace, obviously, the final segment might need to be shortened. OP suggested already, More towards the question asked:
Originally Posted by Chapter 5 FINAL APPROACH SEGMENT
5.1.3 The final approach segment should be aligned with a runway whenever possible. All final approaches with a
FAF have an optimum length of 9.3 km (5 NM). The minimum final approach segment length shall not be less than 5.6 km (3.0 NM). This value also applies to the minimum distance from the FAF to the threshold except for non-RNAV procedures constrained by existing installations. Exceptions apply Personally (EU roots, busy hubs) I found 7, or even 9 NM more convenient. Most probably that SOPs had been built around those. One idea left at the moment = noise footprint. |
Originally Posted by captaincoldfront
(Post 10911390)
Those charts are very interesting, but are 6 years old. Latest Jepps show 6 and 4.7d
|
Originally Posted by captaincoldfront
(Post 10911390)
Those charts are very interesting, but are 6 years old. Latest Jepps show 6 and 4.7d
:O Sorry didn’t check the date lol. I can only assume it has to do with an obstacle clearance requirement. WAG. |
It looks to me that in this case it is for airspace containment purposes; the granted CTA's to EGLF would be as small as feasible, consistent with the purpose that the CAS is in place for in the first place. This reduces the impact on nearby aerodromes/aviation users.
The FAF being at the points where they are ensure that aircraft on the ILS will remain 500ft above the base of CAS of the various stepped down airspaces, whilst following the ILS profile down into the CTR. Not obviously related to obstacles, as EGLF SMAC chart still has lower levels available (in theory), say if one was arriving/transitting IFR from outside CAS. |
Originally Posted by Red Four
(Post 10911603)
It looks to me that in this case it is for airspace containment purposes; the granted CTA's to EGLF would be as small as feasible, consistent with the purpose for the CAS is in place in the first place. This reduces the impact on nearby aerodromes/aviation users.
The FAF being at the points where they are ensure that aircraft on the ILS will remain 500ft above the base of CAS of the various stepped down airspaces, whilst following the ILS profile down into the CTR. Not obviously related to obstacles, as EGLF SMAC chart still has lower levels available (in theory), say if one was arriving/transitting IFR from outside CAS. I originally designed the Farnborough procedures to use alt 1,900ft as the 'platform' altitude but for some reason since I retired, the've been using a higher altitude; it was 2,400ft before CAS but what they use now I don't know. |
Originally Posted by B2N2
(Post 10911381)
I am not understanding your question.
Both approach plates show a final approach fix at 4.4 DME and both have a 3.5 degree glideslope which is a little steeper then the standard 3 degrees. https://www.platinumairways.org/files/EGLFCharts.pdf We could have dropped the 24 glidepath to 3 deg but the Airport Director and I (then a retired Air Commodore) decided that it was best not to as we had enough trouble with NIMBYs already; if they found out that aircraft were to pass 25ft or so lower over their homes, they would have been yelling for another public inquiry. But don't let on; I didn't tell you that anyway. |
Originally Posted by captaincoldfront
(Post 10911390)
Those charts are very interesting, but are 6 years old. Latest Jepps show 6 and 4.7d
The reason for the difference is that the platform altitude on runway 06 post CAS is alt 2,500ft whereas on 24 it's 2,000ft, the '6' and '4.7' representing glidepath intercept ranges. |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10912045)
That's because I designed the procedures for a platform altitude of 1,900ft and 4.4nm equals glidepath intercept at that altitude.
We could have dropped the 24 glidepath to 3 deg but the Airport Director and I (then a retired Air Commodore) decided that it was best not to as we had enough trouble with NIMBYs already; if they found out that aircraft were to pass 25ft or so lower over their homes, they would have been yelling for another public inquiry. But don't let on; I didn't tell you that anyway. |
Jepp charts are immaterial; according to the UK Flight Safety Committee, they are not checked or regulated by an independent source, so the only definitive charts are those in the UK AIP. |
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10912059)
How many operators or pilots use AIP charts in their flightdecks in lue of Jeppesen/LIDO/NavBlue?
As long as updated 3rd party package is a far fetch, and the AIP pages have all the information you'd need, it never hurts to drink from the source. It's free too. |
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10912058)
I always understood the steeper glidepath angle was to avoid "Cody's Tree".
3.5 deg GPs were adopted due to a design system called 'APATC-1' which was mandated for MOD airfields back in the '80s. This involved a different way of calculating approach minima compared to the ICAO method used for civil airfelds, the 'dominant obsatcle' on runway 24 being --- the control tower!! Once that was demolished in early 2003, we could have reduced to a 3 deg GP under both APATC-1 and ICAO methods of iap design. |
|
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10912086)
True in real life. On the hair-splitting side: How many operators or pilots who use Jeppesen/LIDO/NavBlue charts in their flightdecks have read the small print on the Supplier's Disclaimer attachment to the sales contract?
As long as updated 3rd party package is a far fetch, and the AIP pages have all the information you'd need, it never hurts to drink from the source. It's free too. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.