About A Weird ILS Approach

So here's one for someone out there that I would be interested in what you think. I have been doing a flight from KJFK (any runway) To KLGA runway 13. No matter what plane I do it in when I do a full NAV/ILS approach at KLGA runway 13 it puts me at about a 5% angle to the right of the runway. If I don't correct by hand at least a mile out it will be a missed approach. Actually I crash into a bunch of buildings. Now...when I do the same approach/same runway 13 and do GPS only...the plane goes straight down the runway. The only difference is the GPS approach I have to control the glide slope by hand but that's okay with me. Sometimes it's better to keep up on controlling the plane by hand. I still have not mastered speed/altitude and compass positioning on approach and it's been 6 months easy. I fly everyday. The first two months about 4 to 6 hours a day. Yes I am semi retired. So in my mind I think this ILS approach to KLGA runway 13 being off is a programming glitch. I have Steam FSX. Any thoughts out there? Thanks.

Dave R

Some ILS vectors are offset.

Park at the start of 13. look in the map. zoom in on the green ILS arrow. Hover your mous on the arrow. You will see the ILS heading. If the approach is offset, the heading will be different from the Runway heading.

For the Runway heading, look in the Map in the airport data. (click on airport to see the data window pop up).

There is one that is offset at KJFK as well I think. Definitly one at Vancouver (8R). The one at Innsbruck Austria (26) will send you straight into the cliff-face... (cliffface ?)

(Same in real life. Take over manually at low altitude.)

Affirm. This has been talked about before in another thread. Very common thing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you for the feedback. What do you do about this sort of thing? Especially in real life. I mean if you are flying in pea soup how can you be sure your hitting the runway? Obviously I'm not the sharpest at navigation but trying to learn more. Dave R

If you cant see the runway from at least 3 miles you should abort and go around for another pass and hope the weather clears or head to an alternate imo. Its precisely because of situations like this with offset runways or land objects near the glideslope etc. that I always carry a 1hr reserve and have an alternate nearby I can go to if the primary is socked in.

If you cant see the runway from at least 3 miles you should abort and go around for another pass...

Uhm...., no.

3° glideslope (which is pretty standard) is 318 ft/nm.

Cat I ILS Decision Height is 200' above touchdown zone.

That means you will reach the DH about ~2/3 nm from the TDZ.

Still plenty of room to make a small heading change to make sure you land on the runway.

peace,

the Bean

 

snip----------------------------

 

So here's one for someone out there that I would be interested in what you think. I have been doing a flight from KJFK (any runway) To KLGA runway 13. No matter what plane I do it in when I do a full NAV/ILS approach at KLGA runway 13 it puts me at about a 5% angle to the right of the runway.

Runway 13 ILS is not an offset approach. The problem is the localizer is not centered and has a 2 degree difference in respect to the runway heading. Runway 31 is a offset Localizer (no GS) approach.

In the Library there is a download that fixes the problem

KLGA_2011.zip

not only realigns the localizer based on real world charts but the Author also used ADE to reposition the Terminal Waypoints.

Uhm...., no.

 

3° glideslope (which is pretty standard) is 318 ft/nm.

 

Cat I ILS Decision Height is 200' above touchdown zone.

 

That means you will reach the DH about ~2/3 nm from the TDZ.

 

Still plenty of room to make a small heading change to make sure you land on the runway.

 

peace,

the Bean

Not saying you are incorrect, but actually it can be lower. In your standard CAT I ILS if you have the approach lights in sight at DA you can go as low as 100ft above threshold elevation. However, upon reaching 100ft, the pilot must have the red terminating bars, or runway environment in sight before continuing for normal landing. If not, you must execute missed approach.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not saying you are incorrect, but actually it can be lower. In your standard CAT I ILS if you have the approach lights in sight at DA you can go as low as 100ft above threshold elevation. However, upon reaching 100ft, the pilot must have the red terminating bars, or runway environment in sight before continuing for normal landing. If not, you must execute missed approach.

Where does that come form?

Hold on I have to get my FARs out to find it.

Edit: I found it. It's in Part 121.651 somewhere in there. Can't give you an exact paragraph/sub paragraph, but it's there. It applies only to scheduled air carrier operations and from the wording it almost sounds like it's an exemption for the operator specifications. I'll supply a photo from my company manual since it's not SSI.

Hold on I have to get my FARs out to find it.

 

Edit: I found it. It's in Part 121.651 somewhere in there. Can't give you an exact paragraph/sub paragraph, but it's there. It applies only to scheduled air carrier operations and from the wording it almost sounds like it's an exemption for the operator specifications. I'll supply a photo from my company manual since it's not SSI.

 

[ATTACH]182804[/ATTACH]

I think that the interpretation may be incorrect .

Para 1.(a) is a normal commonsense condition that should apply always .

Note ; Para 1.(b) ends with ... ; and ,

that indicates that "visibility" should be at prescribed standard before

Para 1.© can be considered .

In other words Para 1.© cannot be considered or acted upon unless visibility meets or exceeds that of Para 1.(b) .

Therefore it cannot be lower .

That " and " is an all important defining condition.

Cheers

Karol

I think that the interpretation may be incorrect .

Para 1.(a) is a normal commonsense condition that should apply always .

 

Note ; Para 1.(b) ends with ... ; and ,

that indicates that "visibility" should be at prescribed standard before

Para 1.© can be considered .

 

In other words Para 1.© cannot be considered or acted upon unless visibility meets or exceeds that of Para 1.(b) .

 

Therefore it cannot be lower .

That " and " is an all important defining condition.

 

Cheers

Karol

I wasn't talking about visibility. We were talking about how low can you go on a CAT I ILS without seeing the runway. It would be illegal to start an approach with the visibility below minimums anyways. So your point is moot.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you are saying the same thing as Bean, or not?

He says: "You may continue to MDA if you have no visibility. Then still no visibility means: no lower."

This guide says: "You may continue if conditions a, b, and c are met. So you may only continue if you have required visibility and can verify you are actually in the correct position".

(Though the way it is written is confusing me. "you may not unless it is not not untrue" ;) Find that way of saying things a bit difficult. Plus I didn't sleep to well last night...)

Not trying to be a wiseguy, just trying to help (and trying to follow this a bit.)

Cheers,

il88pp.

I wasn't talking about visibility. We were talking about how low can you go on a CAT I ILS without seeing the runway. It would be illegal to start an approach with the visibility below minimums anyways. So your point is moot.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read it carefully , the clauses are usually complex .

I agree with il88pp it can be confusing , each word has weight in a legal sense , and to add further complexity other portions of the regulations apply as well .

In the case of CAT level approaches , not only does the pilot need to be suitably qualified or endorsed , but also the aircraft instrument and avionics to comply with each CAT standard .

However , Para 1.© refers to CAT II , not CAT I .

Cheers

Karol

Nevemind, I missed some in the Cat2 part.

Going lower then MDA seems like a very dangerous proposition to me though. Very easy to identify the wrong lights on approach in fog (approach lights or two parked cars with lights on, one you see the rear, the other the headlights, just to name one)

(Reminds me of a crash in Switzerland for some reason. Low approach, in fog, not watching the DME, "ground contact -- affirm" and turned out to be houses. Was an 'Air crash investigation' program. "Captain Lutz" comes to mind, cant remember name of airport.

Forget I said anything. Question withdrawn.

Your reference to 14 CFR 121.651 seems to be out of date. Yours states "Except for Category II approaches, where..." Mine states "Except for Category II or Category III approaches where .."

Also there are significant differences between the two. For example, the following words appear twice in section ©(3) and (d)(3) which depend on © and (d) repectively.

(3) Except for Category II or Category III approaches where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by authorization of the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

Read it carefully , the clauses are usually complex .

I agree with il88pp it can be confusing , each word has weight in a legal sense , and to add further complexity other portions of the regulations apply as well .

In the case of CAT level approaches , not only does the pilot need to be suitably qualified or endorsed , but also the aircraft instrument and avionics to comply with each CAT standard .

 

However , Para 1.© refers to CAT II , not CAT I .

 

Cheers

Karol

???? It says "Except for category 2 approaches". Meaning this paragraph applies to category 1 ILS.

Here, talked about on different forum. RW pilots. Confirms what I have been saying.

Descent below DH on ILS - Airline Pilot Central Forums

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com › 6742-desc...

Here's a screenshot. Seems like it's in Part 91 as well. Black and white.

It specifically states the exception of cat 2 or even 3 approaches that if you have approach lights in sight, you can descend to 100ft above TDZE then you must have the runway environment in sight. My company, a part 121 carrier, uses this and trains us to do this. The FAA even approved the company documentation for the procedures.

Profile callouts:

Approaching minimums

APPROACH LIGHTS IN SIGHT, CONTINUE.

at 100ft. Runway in sight, land

Runway not in sight, missed approach.

Note: there is a whole separate paragraph that specifically talks about Cat 2 and 3 approaches.

Here's a screenshot. Seems like it's in Part 91 as well. Black and white.

 

[ATTACH]182823[/ATTACH]

 

It specifically states the exception of cat 2 or even 3 approaches that if you have approach lights in sight, you can descend to 100ft above TDZE then you must have the runway environment in sight. My company, a part 121 carrier, uses this and trains us to do this. The FAA even approved the company documentation for the procedures.

 

Profile callouts:

 

Approaching minimums

 

APPROACH LIGHTS IN SIGHT, CONTINUE.

 

at 100ft. Runway in sight, land

Runway not in sight, missed approach.

 

Note: there is a whole separate paragraph that specifically talks about Cat 2 and 3 approaches.

Para (3) very clearly states that it's subject matter relates to CAT II and CAT III .

" (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where ..... "

It is a misinterpretation to construe Para (3) as relating to CAT I .

Check with your Check captain or the FAA about clarification of your interpretation of Para 3 .

Cheers

Karol

I agree.

Section (3) means that Category II or Category III approaches where any necessary visual requirements are those specified by the Adminstrator otherwise the visual references are those in (i) to (x)

I see no refererence to Cat I