Roost Air Lounge => The Classroom => Topic started by: Aviation Freak on March 16, 2006, 11:30:36 PM
Title: ILS
Post by: Aviation Freak on March 16, 2006, 11:30:36 PM
-What does it stand for? ??? -Is there a certain range you need to be at to intercept? ??? -How does it work?
Thanks! :D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Zaffex on March 17, 2006, 12:27:06 AM
I'll give a shot at this, please correct me anyone if I'm wrong. ILS stands for Instrument Landing System, and is used to guide aircraft to the runway in bad weather conditions (IFR). Basically it sends out a signal that you tune the aircraft radio to, then you follow the system almost to the runway. Once you can see the runway, you land the plane. That's my "rough cut" on ILS. You can probably get a better description from people who've actually used it in real life, and many of these guys sound very willing to help you out with any info they have.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 17, 2006, 12:54:32 AM
Good brief on it, Zaffex! You are correct in how it works.
There are many components to the ILS system in total. There is various forms of runway and approach lighting, different kinds of ILS "approaches" which use different kinds of radio navigation tools, and different kinds of procedures to handle different kinds of "approaches" too.
The approach is also only one area of Instrument flight. There are "SID"s too. An instrument "approach" is called a "STAR", which means Standard Terminal ARrival procedure. A "SID" is a Standard Instrument Departure procedure. It would literally fill a book on how all this stuff works, and now with GPS and WAAS coming into the picture the ILS systems are changing, and becoming available at airports not formally equipped with what has traditionally been known as an "ILS".
When someone is referring to an ILS generically, they are generally referring to what is known as a "localizer" in conjunction with an on-airport "VOR" The VOR portion provides left-to-right guidance, while the "localizer" provides the vertical slope, or glide slope, information. So, when you are on a full "ILS" approach, you are really using two different radio signals to guide you down. There are other ways for finding the airport too. There are Ground Surviellance Radar approaches (widely used by the military in conjunction with a "GNC" officer), NDB approaches, which use the ADF radio (these are going away), and GPS now too. As I said... there are plenty of things I could write about here to explain all of it, but I'm not a CFI, and it would take a book, literally, to deal with the topic.
The thing to also know is that the ILS system is a term generally used to denote the entire range of Instrument approach and departure procedures colloquially, while flying an actual "ILS" is dealing with the two different, high precision, radio beams providing horizontal, and vertical navigation information. Oh, and yes, you can have an "ILS" that does not provide glide-slope information. In cases like that, the procedure is to use speed, and time from known points to plan decent rates so you end up where you are supposed to be.
Ok... I suspect this has totally confused many at this point... so I'll stop here. ;D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 17, 2006, 01:05:15 AM
I also forgot to address your ranging question. Different ranges apply to various points in the system and the types of equipment being used. There are three "phases" of Instrument flight. Departure, Enroute, and Approach. Each has a very specific procedure for various things with both routing, and handling of radios, etc. Each approach to an airport has something called an IAF, which means "Initial Approach Fix". This is where the actual approach to an airport starts. It can have various ranges and procedures. The thing to remember is that an approach is the final portion of an Instrument flight, and that the "STAR" (Standard Terminal ARrival procedure) handles the closer proximity to the airport and contains the descent information. Normally approaches are within 10 to 15 NM of the arrival airport... but this is not necessarily written in stone.
For that matter, procedures don't remain static once they are defined. They can get changed any time it is required. This can happen because of a new building, radio tower, or other change in clearances from obstacles, or even noise abatement, is required. Every 56 days new issues of these "SIDS", "STARS", and enroute maps get updated. Between updates, there are also publications of updates too, and the pilot needs to really check carefully if a procedure has changed prior to leaving on any given flight for maximum safety.
I hope all this is of help, and hasn't confused things horribly for you.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: wbarnhill on March 17, 2006, 01:48:26 AM
There are Ground Surviellance Radar approaches (widely used by the military in conjunction with a "GNC" officer)
One of the most fun things I did during training was an ASR (Airport Surveillance Radar) landing at GSP. Under the hood with instructions every 30 seconds or so, when they finally said "You're 1/2 mile from threshold, on heading, 1000 ft, cleared for touch and go." Instructor had me remove the hood and it was just beautiful. It's definitely an experience and a great resource if you ever get caught in instrument conditions unwillingly ;) And from what I understand the tower guys have to have or practice an ASR approach every 90 days. So it's a good idea if any of the airports in your area have radar capability to give it a shot :D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 17, 2006, 04:02:34 AM
Very well explained, everyone. One small point...The localizer gives left/right indications, the glideslope gives up/down. Basicly, if the glideslope goes out, you can still get to the airport with a localizer approach.
ASR's are a lot of fun. You get your own frequency and everything. :D Wbarnhill's right, controllers do need to practice them, so whenever you get a chance, ask for one. If I remember right, the airport needs to have RADAR on the field in order to have an ASR.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 17, 2006, 04:51:14 PM
Very well explained, everyone. One small point...The localizer gives left/right indications, the glideslope gives up/down. Basicly, if the glideslope goes out, you can still get to the airport with a localizer approach.
ASR's are a lot of fun. You get your own frequency and everything. :D Wbarnhill's right, controllers do need to practice them, so whenever you get a chance, ask for one. If I remember right, the airport needs to have RADAR on the field in order to have an ASR.
Thanks for clarifying that... I realize I mistated that in my earlier post. That's what I get for thinking faster than typing :D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 17, 2006, 04:57:33 PM
One other thing you may want to use to help you out is getting a copy of the AIM (Airman's Information Manual). It tells you how everything works in detail, though it's designed as a reference, not an instructional text. If you want to know more about instrument flying, the FAA puts out a book on that too, but I'd recommend holding off on that until you have at least primary training done so it makes more sense to you.
ASA Publications puts out a combined FAR/AIM text each year (FAR = Federal Air Regulations), and it's less expensive to buy it that way, than buying the two books separately. You can even subscribe to email updates through their website to keep up to date with changes between publication cycles.
Here is a link to the ASA FAR/AIM at Sporty's Pilot Shop website. They have the best price going, even with shipping.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 17, 2006, 05:52:15 PM
I like ASA's version of the regs a lot better than Jepp's. It's cheaper and has more information. ASA's Instrument Flying manual is also a good reference, but I still like the Jepp manuals for private and commercial.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Aviation Freak on March 17, 2006, 08:06:02 PM
Thanks for the help! ;D I learned a few more things today about something I knew little about. I like to think of ILS as an Interestin Landing System because every time I try it on X-Plane, I always end up flying aroundin circles. Also that the system its self is actually interesting to me. :P
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 17, 2006, 08:11:42 PM
When you're flying an ILS, you want to make sure that your heading is relatively close to your landing runway diretion (e.g. Runway 36, you want your heading to be around 360o. Then, just keep the localizer and glideslope crossed in the center, and you'll hit the runway eventually. :P
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Aviation Freak on March 18, 2006, 01:43:35 PM
I did an ILS approach on X-Plane yesterday with a help of a Air Trafic Controler and I mannaged a good landing. ;D Here is my next related question for this: Is there a point where you disengage everything (VOR Locolizer and APP and other engaged Auto Pilots?
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 19, 2006, 03:24:37 AM
200 ft.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Bustnthru on July 21, 2006, 11:00:53 AM
HA its 300 here (nz) stupid backwards tiny country......
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: fireflyr on July 21, 2006, 11:42:57 AM
300 ft--why is that-extreme terrain perhaps?
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on July 21, 2006, 03:16:54 PM
Just had to chime in on this one....
While it's great to have the help of the autopilot on the approach, for safety sake, remember to practice without it's help. Even the best autopilots malfunction... and being able to hand-fly an approach in a pinch is still a skill to hone.
Sorry if this sounds preachy... I just heard my CFII's voice in my head when I read this thread! I couldn't resist passing his sage advice on. I've had more than one KAP140 unit go south on me when it was least expected.
|:)\
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Bustnthru on July 22, 2006, 03:39:45 AM
its the gear down here mostly, the bigger AD's have lower DA's AA, CH, WN, OH, but nothing like the auto land Stuff U guys got up there, after a quick flick thru the AIP im pretty sure theres nothing better than a cat 1 in NZ ( I will correct statment if im wrong)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on August 11, 2006, 11:11:18 PM
Quote
Basicly, if the glideslope goes out, you can still get to the airport with a localizer approach.
How do you fly a localizer approach? My plane has a VOR, but no glideslope reciever and I'd love to get my IFR rating, but not if I can't maintain it. Also, No marker beakons, No ADF, but full gyros. My next plane will definitly get an IFR GPS unit, but that's several years down the road.
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: fireflyr on August 12, 2006, 02:36:15 AM
Basicly, if the glideslope goes out, you can still get to the airport with a localizer approach.
How do you fly a localizer approach? My plane has a VOR, but no glideslope reciever and I'd love to get my IFR rating, but not if I can't maintain it. Also, No marker beakons, No ADF, but full gyros. My next plane will definitly get an IFR GPS unit, but that's several years down the road.
Phil
Crackers! I wish you were closer, I'd love to show you (and get my hands on your airplane)but one of the other CFIIs who teach on a daily basis could probably explain it more succinctly than I so lets see if we can sucker one in.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on August 12, 2006, 06:43:31 AM
Basicly, if the glideslope goes out, you can still get to the airport with a localizer approach.
How do you fly a localizer approach? My plane has a VOR, but no glideslope reciever and I'd love to get my IFR rating, but not if I can't maintain it. Also, No marker beakons, No ADF, but full gyros. My next plane will definitly get an IFR GPS unit, but that's several years down the road.
Phil
Well, I'm not a CFII, but I am working on my instrument ticket, so I'll try to shed some basic light on this, and hope that an actual CFII chimes in to fill in the blanks, and correct me (PLEASE!!!) if I'm not right.
You tune your VOR to the localizer frequency. A localizer is 4x more sensitive than a regular VOR, so VERY small, gradual adjustments, sometimes only a nudge or bare kick of a rudder pedal is all that's needed if the needle, once centered, starts drifting. You use your descent rate and time from a known fix to fly the approach in for the category of your airplane as it is classified on the approach plate, and, if all goes right, you should hopefully have the field in sight by the time the time is up. If not, you execute the missed approach procedure. I might add that unless you think you really screwed up the flying of the procedure, I wouldn't give it a second go at the same airport. After all, if you missed it once, and flew it according to the proc, then you may as well go to your alternate, where the weather is better (if you've planned the flight out right).
Hope this helps. I'd get with a qualified CFII to work on this. DON'T do it on your own unless you are doing it under the hood with a safety pilot in VFR. Trying it for real in IMC without lots and lots of practice is a good way to invite disaster. (Ok... I know you probably knew that in this last paragraph, but I feel better for having said it in case someone else thinks they can give it a whirl)
|:)\ ;D |:)\ Happy and SAFE flying!
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on August 30, 2006, 08:43:19 AM
Good brief on it, Zaffex! You are correct in how it works.
There are many components to the ILS system in total. There is various forms of runway and approach lighting, different kinds of ILS "approaches" which use different kinds of radio navigation tools, and different kinds of procedures to handle different kinds of "approaches" too.
The approach is also only one area of Instrument flight. There are "SID"s too. An instrument "approach" is called a "STAR", which means Standard Terminal ARrival procedure. A "SID" is a Standard Instrument Departure procedure. It would literally fill a book on how all this stuff works, and now with GPS and WAAS coming into the picture the ILS systems are changing, and becoming available at airports not formally equipped with what has traditionally been known as an "ILS".
An Instrument Approach Procedure and a STAR are two different things. A SID is also not the same as a regular departure procedure either.
A STAR (which is correctly a Standard Terminal Arrival) is for larger airports with higher amounts of traffic. It's a standardized flow for aircraft to follow to line up for controllers. The entire idea of this is that it makes it easier for controllers to vector you around afterwards for the approach. For example, the entire point of the TAGER 3 STAR at Anchorage is that you go to the fix "TAGER" and then procede to the Anchorage VOR (you get vectored before reaching it, usually for an ILS).
The STAR gets you to the Terminal Area, the Approach gets you to the ground.
A SID is the departure version of a STAR. In both cases controllers are able to assign you to the procedure and know that you will make the neccesary course changes through the procedure. This dramatically reduces the workload.
Like with the STAR and Instrument Approach (many airports have Instrument Approaches, but few have STARS), some smaller airports have a departure procedure, but no SIDs. Departure procedure would usually be for an obstruction, such as a mountain. The SID is for traffic flow and controller workload.
I'm going to intersperse a few quotes from the AIM here:
"INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (DP)- A preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) departure procedure published for pilot use, in graphic or textual format, that provides obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. There are two types of DP, Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP), printed either textually or graphically, and, Standard Instrument Departure (SID), which is always printed graphically. "
"STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID)- A preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) air traffic control (ATC) departure procedure printed for pilot/controller use in graphic form to provide obstacle clearance and a transition from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. SIDs are primarily designed for system enhancement to expedite traffic flow and to reduce pilot/controller workload. ATC clearance must always be received prior to flying a SID. "
"STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL- A preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) air traffic control arrival procedure published for pilot use in graphic and/or textual form. STARs provide transition from the en route structure to an outer fix or an instrument approach fix/arrival waypoint in the terminal area. "
Quote
When someone is referring to an ILS generically, they are generally referring to what is known as a "localizer" in conjunction with an on-airport "VOR" The VOR portion provides left-to-right guidance, while the "localizer" provides the vertical slope, or glide slope, information. So, when you are on a full "ILS" approach, you are really using two different radio signals to guide you down. There are other ways for finding the airport too. There are Ground Surviellance Radar approaches (widely used by the military in conjunction with a "GNC" officer), NDB approaches, which use the ADF radio (these are going away), and GPS now too. As I said... there are plenty of things I could write about here to explain all of it, but I'm not a CFI, and it would take a book, literally, to deal with the topic.
Someone previously corrected the ILS components (I want to make sure it is clear that the localizer and a VOR are two different devices that work in very different ways). The radar approaches are becoming fewer and farther between now. Few controllers can provide it, and I've only seen military bases listing it (and not all of them).
Quote
The thing to also know is that the ILS system is a term generally used to denote the entire range of Instrument approach and departure procedures colloquially, while flying an actual "ILS" is dealing with the two different, high precision, radio beams providing horizontal, and vertical navigation information. Oh, and yes, you can have an "ILS" that does not provide glide-slope information. In cases like that, the procedure is to use speed, and time from known points to plan decent rates so you end up where you are supposed to be.
You could know that, but it is incorrect. ILS is a very specific term denoting a single system that has both vertical and horizontal guidance. And *no* you can *NOT* have an ILS with no glide slope information. In that case it's a LOC or Localizer approach and not an ILS. Now, the ILS charts will have a LOC depiction and MDA for use with no glide slope, but it is still a different approach. An approach with no glideslope installed is simply termed a Localizer approach or LOC.
Quote
Ok... I suspect this has totally confused many at this point... so I'll stop here. ;D
I hope I havn't offended you with my corrections here. Those are very common misconceptions about how the IFR environment works.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on August 30, 2006, 08:53:51 AM
Phil, it sounds like your aircraft isn't IFR certified. With a single VOR and no other nav aids, I'm fairly positive it's not. ;)
You'd be better off getting into an actual IFR aircraft to learn approaches etc.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on September 07, 2006, 03:30:25 AM
Quote
Phil, it sounds like your aircraft isn't IFR certified. With a single VOR and no other nav aids, I'm fairly positive it's not.
You'd be better off getting into an actual IFR aircraft to learn approaches etc.
Thanks, I've been flying as Safty pilot for a friend of mine this summer and learned a lot about IFR flying. It would theoretically be possible to fly the LOC approach in my plane, but not very practical. Since my Nav doesn't even have flip-flop capability it'd be very tough to find CASH and stay on the LOC. But then, the missed approach procedure requires an ADF, so your right, I'd have to do some upgrades. That's why I'm holding off untill I have a plane I can stay current in.
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 07, 2006, 05:17:40 AM
Thanks, I've been flying as Safty pilot for a friend of mine this summer and learned a lot about IFR flying. It would theoretically be possible to fly the LOC approach in my plane, but not very practical. Since my Nav doesn't even have flip-flop capability it'd be very tough to find CASH and stay on the LOC. But then, the missed approach procedure requires an ADF, so your right, I'd have to do some upgrades. That's why I'm holding off untill I have a plane I can stay current in.
Phil
Phil, it's CACHE. ;)
An IFR GPS is a very nice addition as well. It makes an very large difference in your flying. GPS approaches help situational awareness and you can still watch the moving map on others (and many fixes are in the GPS units). You can fly airways with a course line or get a clearance directly to your destination.
IFR aircraft also require updates (for GPS units) and checks for various equipment. This includes the NAV radios and instrumentation.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on September 07, 2006, 03:18:10 PM
Quote
An IFR GPS is a very nice addition as well.
It's also a $10,000 addition! :o So not happening any time soon. Maybe when the price drops to less than 50% of the plan's value. ;)
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 08, 2006, 05:36:55 AM
It's also a $10,000 addition! :o So not happening any time soon. Maybe when the price drops to less than 50% of the plan's value. ;)
Phil
Hahahaha!
We use King/Bendix KLN-90Bs in the 1900s, they are a popular unit because they are so capable yet not very expensive (relatively speaking). Is that $10,000 price tag for a KLN-90B or a pricier unit?
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: happylanding on September 09, 2006, 10:19:11 PM
You could know that, but it is incorrect. ILS is a very specific term denoting a single system that has both vertical and horizontal guidance. And *no* you can *NOT* have an ILS with no glide slope information. In that case it's a LOC or Localizer approach and not an ILS. Now, the ILS charts will have a LOC depiction and MDA for use with no glide slope, but it is still a different approach. An approach with no glideslope installed is simply termed a Localizer approach or LOC.
Gosh, professional description! |:)\ |:)\ |:)\ but now I have a question: is the LOC the IGS?!? if not, where is the difference?
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 10, 2006, 05:36:07 AM
You could know that, but it is incorrect. ILS is a very specific term denoting a single system that has both vertical and horizontal guidance. And *no* you can *NOT* have an ILS with no glide slope information. In that case it's a LOC or Localizer approach and not an ILS. Now, the ILS charts will have a LOC depiction and MDA for use with no glide slope, but it is still a different approach. An approach with no glideslope installed is simply termed a Localizer approach or LOC.
Gosh, professional description! |:)\ |:)\ |:)\ but now I have a question: is the LOC the IGS?!? if not, where is the difference?
By "IGS" are you meaning "ILS" ? I think what is important to convey is that there is a difference between generic terms of flying on instruments in an IFR approach environment, and the actual specific types of approaches. A true "ILS" approach had both vertical and horizontal guidance by way of radio signals. The actual glide slope needle is employed in a true ILS for vertical guidance down on the approach. If you are flying on an ILS approach and the vertical guidance goes out on you, then the ILS approach turns into a Localizer approach. A LOC (Localizer) approach gives you the guidance onto the centerline, but you guage your approach to the MAP (Missed Approach Point) by use of the time for the category your are flying in on (A, B, C, etc., which is based on ground speed).
One should fly an ILS and back up the GS indication with the clock too, in case you need to revert to the LOC approach. That way if it quits while you're halfway down, you'll know how much time is left to go until the MAP where you either have to go missed, or land.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 10, 2006, 07:25:10 AM
By "IGS" are you meaning "ILS" ? I think what is important to convey is that there is a difference between generic terms of flying on instruments in an IFR approach environment, and the actual specific types of approaches. A true "ILS" approach had both vertical and horizontal guidance by way of radio signals. The actual glide slope needle is employed in a true ILS for vertical guidance down on the approach. If you are flying on an ILS approach and the vertical guidance goes out on you, then the ILS approach turns into a Localizer approach. A LOC (Localizer) approach gives you the guidance onto the centerline, but you guage your approach to the MAP (Missed Approach Point) by use of the time for the category your are flying in on (A, B, C, etc., which is based on ground speed).
One should fly an ILS and back up the GS indication with the clock too, in case you need to revert to the LOC approach. That way if it quits while you're halfway down, you'll know how much time is left to go until the MAP where you either have to go missed, or land.
I can't find anything to disagree with here, great explanation.
There are also BC LOC approaches! Back Course Localizer approaches are usually for the other runway direction opposite a localizer or ILS approach, with a standard CDI you read it backwards to do the approach (we have an HSI so we just turn the needle around the opposite way and it works normally). These days it's rare to see a regular LOC approach that isn't just part of an ILS, although we have a few hiding out up here in Alaska I believe. The directional part of an ILS is still called a Localizer and it's the same equipment, the only difference is the addition of a glide slope transmitter beside the touchdown zone.
There are also ILS DME and LOC DME approaches which use DME fixes for the approach (we have some of those too).
I've been on a ILS VOR DME approach since I've been up here. You shoot a DME arc off of the VOR until a set VOR radial when you start your turn inbound to end up on the Localizer at X altitude until you intercept the glideslope down (in a smaller aircraft it lets you use one receiver if only one is availible to shoot the arc and do the turn inbound, with faster aircraft you need the ID just so you don't overshoot the localizer, and it still comes up quick).
An approach that is ILS DME or LOC DME is nice because if you don't start time and the DME is up you still have your MAP information if the glideslope is out. There are also NDB DME approaches up here still, although I've only shot one NDB approach due to an INOP GPS. We shoot GPS or ILS approaches when we can, and I'm not aware of any airports that we go to now that have any instrument approaches that don't have a GPS.
Tundra: another reason for an IFR GPS, there are many airports now that *only* have a GPS approach.
Anyway, a key thing to know about a Localizer (for LOC or ILS approaches) is that they actually use a different method to determine where the needle points than the VORs do. On a VOR the receiver times pulses while on an ILS the signal is a left of course signal or right of course signal, the instrument measures how much of each signal you are picking up, both is on course. At least that's the simplist way to explain them.
Since I brought up a VOR... imagine a compas spinning. The needle has a laser that points out in whatever direction the needle is pointing. As the needle gets to 0 degrees (magnetic north) there is a "pulse" of light that comes out. Turn those into radio signals and that's what a VOR does. The receiver measures the difference in the time between the 0 pulse and the line pulse to determine what radial you are on.
Because an ILS just says right or left of course it'll show the same no matter how you have the receiver set for a VOR... although that could get really confusing on an HSI (an HSI is an adjustable arrow in your DG, the point of the arrow is the VOR radial and the center of the arrow moves left or right for course).
Too much info?
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: happylanding on September 10, 2006, 09:20:19 AM
Ted (nice avatar!) and Baradium, thanks for the explanation. |:)\ |:)\ I was told once that in Lugano airport (LSZA) who flies IFR doesn't have an ILS approach but an IGS. And I was told (but I'm not IFR certified, so it could be I was misunderstood) that the rwy doesn't have an ILS but an IGS (instrumental ground system if I remember for what it stays correctly). when you say that in an ILS approach you have two needles that need to be centered, and in the LOC you just have a guidance to the centerline, but it's up to you how to descent, it seems to me that it is what I was told to be the IGS approach, that doesn't give you the angle of descent you have to follow. the point is that, if I remember what I was told correctly, in that case there is no ILS components on ground but a different and easier (and less expensive) system............the point is that, from what you say, it seems that IGS doesn't exist, but is just a LOC approach on a ILS. So I'm wondering if I was completely misunderstood that day....
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 10, 2006, 09:22:07 AM
Ted (nice avatar!) and Baradium, thanks for the explanation. |:)\ |:)\ I was told once that in Lugano airport (LSZA) who flies IFR doesn't have an ILS approach but an IGS. And I was told (but I'm not IFR certified, so it could be I was misunderstood) that the rwy doesn't have an ILS but an IGS (instrumental ground system if I remember for what it stays correctly). when you say that in an ILS approach you have two needles that need to be centered, and in the LOC you just have a guidance to the centerline, but it's up to you how to descent, it seems to me that it is what I was told to be the IGS approach, that doesn't give you the angle of descent you have to follow. the point is that, if I remember what I was told correctly, in that case there is no ILS components on ground but a different and easier (and less expensive) system............the point is that, from what you say, it seems that IGS doesn't exist, but is just a LOC approach on a ILS. So I'm wondering if I was completely misunderstood that day....
I'm looking into what IGS might stand for. I'll get back to this post in a few minutes.
But on that note... Happy, get into the chat room! ;)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 10, 2006, 11:16:00 AM
Ted (nice avatar!) and Baradium, thanks for the explanation. |:)\ |:)\ I was told once that in Lugano airport (LSZA) who flies IFR doesn't have an ILS approach but an IGS. And I was told (but I'm not IFR certified, so it could be I was misunderstood) that the rwy doesn't have an ILS but an IGS (instrumental ground system if I remember for what it stays correctly). when you say that in an ILS approach you have two needles that need to be centered, and in the LOC you just have a guidance to the centerline, but it's up to you how to descent, it seems to me that it is what I was told to be the IGS approach, that doesn't give you the angle of descent you have to follow. the point is that, if I remember what I was told correctly, in that case there is no ILS components on ground but a different and easier (and less expensive) system............the point is that, from what you say, it seems that IGS doesn't exist, but is just a LOC approach on a ILS. So I'm wondering if I was completely misunderstood that day....
I'm looking into what IGS might stand for. I'll get back to this post in a few minutes.
But on that note... Happy, get into the chat room! ;)
Here is an approach plate for an IGS approach: (http://www.lawrencechiu.com/kaitakairport/kt13.gif) Text explaining it (note that there isn't a descent picture, this isn't a full plate). http://www.lawrencechiu.com/kaitakairport/igs.htm This is an ILS with the glideslope offset from the runway by 47 degrees! That's a hard turn at low altitude....
A night landing at that airport on the last night it was open http://youtube.com/watch?v=McNU5b2-7bc
A day landing at the airport (gives a better idea of how the turn looks). http://youtube.com/watch?v=zMpLaKJYxp8&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 11, 2006, 02:13:01 PM
Ted (nice avatar!) and Baradium, thanks for the explanation. |:)\ |:)\ I was told once that in Lugano airport (LSZA) who flies IFR doesn't have an ILS approach but an IGS. And I was told (but I'm not IFR certified, so it could be I was misunderstood) that the rwy doesn't have an ILS but an IGS (instrumental ground system if I remember for what it stays correctly). when you say that in an ILS approach you have two needles that need to be centered, and in the LOC you just have a guidance to the centerline, but it's up to you how to descent, it seems to me that it is what I was told to be the IGS approach, that doesn't give you the angle of descent you have to follow. the point is that, if I remember what I was told correctly, in that case there is no ILS components on ground but a different and easier (and less expensive) system............the point is that, from what you say, it seems that IGS doesn't exist, but is just a LOC approach on a ILS. So I'm wondering if I was completely misunderstood that day....
Thanks for the compliment on the avatar, happy :) I have Stef to thank for that one, as it is his wonderful handywork :) Thanks again Stef!!!! Terrific job!!!
The only other thing I can think of with regard to "IGS" is Inertial Guidance System, but that's a system on-board spacecraft or aircraft, and not a system in use at an airport. Inertial Guidance Systems depend on initialization of a known geographic point, then it uses a series of stabilized accellerometers to guage movement in a particular direct at a given rate or accelleration. Such systems today are primitive compared to GPS, laser, or other autonomous navigation systems in use in aircraft spacecraft, and missile systems, though they do sometimes serve as backups in some devices.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: happylanding on September 11, 2006, 09:51:41 PM
Thanks for the compliment on the avatar, happy :) I have Stef to thank for that one, as it is his wonderful handywork :) Thanks again Stef!!!! Terrific job!!!
The only other thing I can think of with regard to "IGS" is Inertial Guidance System, but that's a system on-board spacecraft or aircraft, and not a system in use at an airport. Inertial Guidance Systems depend on initialization of a known geographic point, then it uses a series of stabilized accellerometers to guage movement in a particular direct at a given rate or accelleration. Such systems today are primitive compared to GPS, laser, or other autonomous navigation systems in use in aircraft spacecraft, and missile systems, though they do sometimes serve as backups in some devices.
I agree with you, the avatar is terrific. Great job, Stef! right! |:)\ I do not think is this one yet. but what I will do, is - as soon as I go back to lugano - ask again to the person who told me about the system. then I will get back with the information. it probably is something old, no more in use in the US!
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 11, 2006, 10:58:47 PM
Thanks for the compliment on the avatar, happy :) I have Stef to thank for that one, as it is his wonderful handywork :) Thanks again Stef!!!! Terrific job!!!
The only other thing I can think of with regard to "IGS" is Inertial Guidance System, but that's a system on-board spacecraft or aircraft, and not a system in use at an airport. Inertial Guidance Systems depend on initialization of a known geographic point, then it uses a series of stabilized accellerometers to guage movement in a particular direct at a given rate or accelleration. Such systems today are primitive compared to GPS, laser, or other autonomous navigation systems in use in aircraft spacecraft, and missile systems, though they do sometimes serve as backups in some devices.
I agree with you, the avatar is terrific. Great job, Stef! right! |:)\ I do not think is this one yet. but what I will do, is - as soon as I go back to lugano - ask again to the person who told me about the system. then I will get back with the information. it probably is something old, no more in use in the US!
I've been doing research to see if there are any references internationally on "IGS" being something in aviation other than what I stated below. So far nothing... but if you want to read up on "IGS" (Inertial Guidance Systems) and "INS" (Inertial Navigation Systems), I've posted a link to an article I just foiund with some information below. Enjoy! :)
I've been doing research to see if there are any references internationally on "IGS" being something in aviation other than what I stated below. So far nothing... but if you want to read up on "IGS" (Inertial Guidance Systems) and "INS" (Inertial Navigation Systems), I've posted a link to an article I just foiund with some information below. Enjoy! :)
I feel like I'm in time out. I hope I didn't offend you previously....
As I posted above, I found references to an IGS instrument approach for Hong Kong. Being an ILS approach with a 47 degree offset from the runway due to obstructions, the turn to final is done at the MAP!
That airport is now closed, I could not find *any* other references to an IGS system, however. I did find multiple references to the system in Hong Kong by that name, so it does seem to have existed.
I have not been able to figure out what IGS stands for in the context used for Hong Kong's approach. Happy's reasoning does make since to me though.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 03:51:14 PM
I've been doing research to see if there are any references internationally on "IGS" being something in aviation other than what I stated below. So far nothing... but if you want to read up on "IGS" (Inertial Guidance Systems) and "INS" (Inertial Navigation Systems), I've posted a link to an article I just foiund with some information below. Enjoy! :)
I feel like I'm in time out. I hope I didn't offend you previously....
As I posted above, I found references to an IGS instrument approach for Hong Kong. Being an ILS approach with a 47 degree offset from the runway due to obstructions, the turn to final is done at the MAP!
That airport is now closed, I could not find *any* other references to an IGS system, however. I did find multiple references to the system in Hong Kong by that name, so it does seem to have existed.
I have not been able to figure out what IGS stands for in the context used for Hong Kong's approach. Happy's reasoning does make since to me though.
Offend moi? No way! I don't ever take offense to anyone imparting knowledge! I found your post of great interest, and have been reading through yours as you've been making them. I'm learning too! In fact, that's the great thing about aviation is being able to learn from others and sharing knowledge :) Never worry about speaking out! We're all friends here, so no worries ;D
I do wonder if at that airfield, if it was an old military base for China, that the approach was published for those aircraft having such INS/IGS type of systems, which would likely be military in nature. Just my thoughts on that as a possible explanation. I know they have some military bases that used to use ground surveillance radar to assist with instrument approaches, though I think those went by a different designator, and was used strictly at military bases... at least from what I have heard.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 05:03:31 PM
Offend moi? No way! I don't ever take offense to anyone imparting knowledge! I found your post of great interest, and have been reading through yours as you've been making them. I'm learning too! In fact, that's the great thing about aviation is being able to learn from others and sharing knowledge :) Never worry about speaking out! We're all friends here, so no worries ;D
Thanks, I think I come off a bit strong sometimes. I like debating stuff, I feel it's one of the best way to learn things.
Quote
I do wonder if at that airfield, if it was an old military base for China, that the approach was published for those aircraft having such INS/IGS type of systems, which would likely be military in nature. Just my thoughts on that as a possible explanation. I know they have some military bases that used to use ground surveillance radar to assist with instrument approaches, though I think those went by a different designator, and was used strictly at military bases... at least from what I have heard.
ASR/PAR approaches. They just removed the ones for Eielson (near Fairbanks, prounounced similar to isle-son) from the civilian approach plates (seems it's been decommissioned). Elmendorf (near Anchorage) still has its approach listed. It's a cool system, I've never done one but have talked to those who have. For PAR they use a higher grade radar and literally walk you through an ILS type of approach. Initially they will instruct you to do all turns standard rate and then say "turn right.... stop turn" to keep you on the approach course. They will also give you instructions of above or below glideslope. This happens all the way down.
Quote
PRECISION APPROACH RADAR- Radar equipment in some ATC facilities operated by the FAA and/or the military services at joint-use civil/military locations and separate military installations to detect and display azimuth, elevation, and range of aircraft on the final approach course to a runway. This equipment may be used to monitor certain nonradar approaches, but is primarily used to conduct a precision instrument approach (PAR) wherein the controller issues guidance instructions to the pilot based on the aircraft's position in relation to the final approach course (azimuth), the glidepath (elevation), and the distance (range) from the touchdown point on the runway as displayed on the radar scope.
Note: The abbreviation "PAR" is also used to denote preferential arrival routes in ARTCC computers.
Yes, I had to look all of this up. ASR is the same thing except it doesn't give them elevation information, so they can't guide you down as low. The PAR approaches get you down as far as an ILS! That's pretty far for not having to use any of your own instruments other than a rate or turn indicator, altimiter and a VSI IMO!
The ASR approach for Elmendorf gets you to 461' agl, it doesn't have a diagram for descending, so I guess they give you step down fixes on the approach.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 05:06:44 PM
IGS - Possible Definition! Hoorah!
Well, I did some inquiries here with fellow pilots (military and otherwise), one of which actually has been in the cockpit jump seat of a plane on the KAI TAK IGS approach before! Here is what I found out;
The term IGS originally was from a British system and it's equivalent today is basically a VOR-A with a circling approach to final in terms of what is meant by it and how it works.
IGS stands for Instrument Guidance System, and they are exceedingly rare. Basically the definition published here already is correct. It's an instrument approach to a point near the runway with an angle greater than 45 degrees to the approach end of the runway. It is best flown like a circling approach with instrument, then visual guidance to the runway.
In the case of KAI TAK, the checkerboard is the point at the end of the instrument guidance where you make your turn to final, and do so visually at your planned decent rate. According to my friend that was in the jump seat in a 747 doing this, it was a "fun" approach, but one that "wasn't too bad". After seeing video of it, I'd have to say that while I wouldn't have a problem doing it in a light aircraft, I'd have really concerns about doing it in "big iron", but that's just me. In good weather, okay, but in IMC, well... I'd rather not. Call it a recognition of my limitations and experience if you will... or rather, my innate sense of self preservation :)
:) :) Be careful out there :) :)
P.S. While the Wikipedia is not necessarily authoritative due to lack of independent and verifiable auditing, my friend that flew the KAI TAK in that 747 jump seat also sent me this link. The information is consistent with other things I've come up with independently... so I'd be inclined to say this entry is a good one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Tak_Airport
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 05:12:44 PM
Offend moi? No way! I don't ever take offense to anyone imparting knowledge! I found your post of great interest, and have been reading through yours as you've been making them. I'm learning too! In fact, that's the great thing about aviation is being able to learn from others and sharing knowledge :) Never worry about speaking out! We're all friends here, so no worries ;D
Thanks, I think I come off a bit strong sometimes. I like debating stuff, I feel it's one of the best way to learn things.
Quote
I do wonder if at that airfield, if it was an old military base for China, that the approach was published for those aircraft having such INS/IGS type of systems, which would likely be military in nature. Just my thoughts on that as a possible explanation. I know they have some military bases that used to use ground surveillance radar to assist with instrument approaches, though I think those went by a different designator, and was used strictly at military bases... at least from what I have heard.
ASR/PAR approaches. They just removed the ones for Eielson (near Fairbanks, prounounced similar to isle-son) from the civilian approach plates (seems it's been decommissioned). Elmendorf (near Anchorage) still has its approach listed. It's a cool system, I've never done one but have talked to those who have. For ASR they use a higher grade radar and literally walk you through an ILS type of approach. Initially they will instruct you to do all turns standard rate and then say "turn right.... stop turn" to keep you on the approach course. They will also give you instructions of above or below glideslope. This happens all the way down.
Quote
PRECISION APPROACH RADAR- Radar equipment in some ATC facilities operated by the FAA and/or the military services at joint-use civil/military locations and separate military installations to detect and display azimuth, elevation, and range of aircraft on the final approach course to a runway. This equipment may be used to monitor certain nonradar approaches, but is primarily used to conduct a precision instrument approach (PAR) wherein the controller issues guidance instructions to the pilot based on the aircraft's position in relation to the final approach course (azimuth), the glidepath (elevation), and the distance (range) from the touchdown point on the runway as displayed on the radar scope.
Note: The abbreviation "PAR" is also used to denote preferential arrival routes in ARTCC computers.
Yes, I had to look all of this up. ASR is the same thing except it doesn't give them elevation information, so they can't guide you down lower. The PAR approaches get you down as far as an ILS! That's pretty far for not having to use any of your own instruments other than a rate or turn indicator, altimiter and a VSI IMO!
Ah yes!! ASR/PAR!! I had forgotten what they were called! Thanks!! :) :) The first time I saw it accuratly depicted in it's use was, believe it or not, in the movie "Strategic Air Command" starring Jimmy Stewart. I guess it helped that he was a real pilot and that movie was made in an era when they actually had great concern about making things more accurate when the actual military was involved in the making of the film.
Never be afraid to debate! It's a wonderful learning tool, and so long as it's done with facts and things don't get personal on either side, I think it's terriffic!
The best thing one can do, in fact, is to debate and make people really research their standpoint and reach a factual conclusion. In aviation it's always best to clear up ambiguities.... it saves lives ultimately :)
Great research work on your part too! I look forward to hearing more good posts and debates with you my friend! :)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 05:29:50 PM
Thanks for the IGS info Ted! I couldn't find *any* reference other than what I posted to it. I appears they are no longer used in the US? Maybe they just call it by the approach name and leave it as that, a "circling" approach?
Ah yes!! ASR/PAR!! I had forgotten what they were called! Thanks!! :) :) The first time I saw it accuratly depicted in it's use was, believe it or not, in the movie "Strategic Air Command" starring Jimmy Stewart. I guess it helped that he was a real pilot and that movie was made in an era when they actually had great concern about making things more accurate when the actual military was involved in the making of the film.
I've heard a lot about that movie, but never seen it. I think I do remember seeing a WWII movie where they used a similar system to get down though, now that I think about it.
Quote
Never be afraid to debate! It's a wonderful learning tool, and so long as it's done with facts and things don't get personal on either side, I think it's terriffic!
The best thing one can do, in fact, is to debate and make people really research their standpoint and reach a factual conclusion. In aviation it's always best to clear up ambiguities.... it saves lives ultimately :)
Great research work on your part too! I look forward to hearing more good posts and debates with you my friend! :)
Thank you, same here.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 05:41:20 PM
Thanks for the IGS info Ted! I couldn't find *any* reference other than what I posted to it. I appears they are no longer used in the US? Maybe they just call it by the approach name and leave it as that, a "circling" approach?
Ah yes!! ASR/PAR!! I had forgotten what they were called! Thanks!! :) :) The first time I saw it accuratly depicted in it's use was, believe it or not, in the movie "Strategic Air Command" starring Jimmy Stewart. I guess it helped that he was a real pilot and that movie was made in an era when they actually had great concern about making things more accurate when the actual military was involved in the making of the film.
I've heard a lot about that movie, but never seen it. I think I do remember seeing a WWII movie where they used a similar system to get down though, now that I think about it.
Quote
Never be afraid to debate! It's a wonderful learning tool, and so long as it's done with facts and things don't get personal on either side, I think it's terriffic!
The best thing one can do, in fact, is to debate and make people really research their standpoint and reach a factual conclusion. In aviation it's always best to clear up ambiguities.... it saves lives ultimately :)
Great research work on your part too! I look forward to hearing more good posts and debates with you my friend! :)
Thank you, same here.
I'm not aware of any being used in the United States, and I've only heard of the one mentioned here in China. In the USA we have offset approaches (obviously non-precision ones) with offsets like this. A typical example of one is the VOR-A approach for Washington, Missouri airport, which has an offset that puts you at an angle that will basically take you across at midfield if you continue on to the missed and don't have the runway environment in sight to continue in visually.
I've included the approach plate for that one here just for an example.
;D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 06:29:52 PM
I'm not aware of any being used in the United States, and I've only heard of the one mentioned here in China. In the USA we have offset approaches (obviously non-precision ones) with offsets like this. A typical example of one is the VOR-A approach for Washington, Missouri airport, which has an offset that puts you at an angle that will basically take you across at midfield if you continue on to the missed and don't have the runway environment in sight to continue in visually.
I've included the approach plate for that one here just for an example.
;D
Yeah, I was looking at those. I noticed that the IGS is termed to have more than 45 degrees offset... that one is 35, but still not the 45 termed. I was looking through the Alaska approach plates I have for the same thing and came up dry. Are you aware of any US approaches with more than 45 degrees offset?
A big thing about that china one is that you are setup to make a turn to final instead of entering a modified traffic pattern like a normal circling approach. Seems like it could be tough in low visibility...
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 07:02:21 PM
I'm not aware of any being used in the United States, and I've only heard of the one mentioned here in China. In the USA we have offset approaches (obviously non-precision ones) with offsets like this. A typical example of one is the VOR-A approach for Washington, Missouri airport, which has an offset that puts you at an angle that will basically take you across at midfield if you continue on to the missed and don't have the runway environment in sight to continue in visually.
I've included the approach plate for that one here just for an example.
;D
Yeah, I was looking at those. I noticed that the IGS is termed to have more than 45 degrees offset... that one is 35, but still not the 45 termed. I was looking through the Alaska approach plates I have for the same thing and came up dry. Are you aware of any US approaches with more than 45 degrees offset?
A big thing about that china one is that you are setup to make a turn to final instead of entering a modified traffic pattern like a normal circling approach. Seems like it could be tough in low visibility...
I don't know of any in the continental US, though I did hear that there is one in Alaska that might, though it may have been obsoleted and replaced with something else already... most likely a GPS/RNAV. According to the FAA regs here though, any approach with an offset greater than 30 degrees becomes a non-precision, circling approach with a sequential letter designator if multiple approaches, so even one with a 50 degree angle would still be classified as such and not termed an IGS here. Again, this is my understanding of it. Feel free to chime in anyone if I am incorrect in this please! :)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 07:15:35 PM
IGS isn't in the AIM Glossary, so I agree that it appears that the term itself has been obsoleted and removed for use in the US.
I'd like to note that we have instrument approaches that don't get you below 2,000 ft AGL. ;)
Aantuvuk pass gets you to 3953' AGL on the NDB and the GPS gets you to 3353' AGL... and those are the only approaches. As "circling" approaches with a 30 degree angle from one of the runways (same one for both), there are no runway numbers for the approaches.
The airport is in the bottom of a pass (think a canyon). Airport elevation 2107, terrain within a mile is almost 6,000!
Since you can fly up the canyon at 500 ft AGL, VFR traffic can get in under MUCH lower weather than IFR in this airport! It's one of those places where you go somewhere else and fly VFR the rest of the way if the weather is *low*.
We don't go to that airport much, but my one room mate who flies a part 135 1900 gets to regularly. Says it's pretty fun to be flying up the pass at low level at 200 kts. ;)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 07:41:07 PM
IGS isn't in the AIM Glossary, so I agree that it appears that the term itself has been obsoleted and removed for use in the US.
I'd like to note that we have instrument approaches that don't get you below 2,000 ft AGL. ;)
Aantuvuk pass gets you to 3953' AGL on the NDB and the GPS gets you to 3353' AGL... and those are the only approaches. As "circling" approaches with a 30 degree angle from one of the runways (same one for both), there are no runway numbers for the approaches.
The airport is in the bottom of a pass (think a canyon). Airport elevation 2107, terrain within a mile is almost 6,000!
Since you can fly up the canyon at 500 ft AGL, VFR traffic can get in under MUCH lower weather than IFR in this airport! It's one of those places where you go somewhere else and fly VFR the rest of the way if the weather is *low*.
We don't go to that airport much, but my one room mate who flies a part 135 1900 gets to regularly. Says it's pretty fun to be flying up the pass at low level at 200 kts. ;)
Hmm.... where is it that you are from, Ryan? I'm just curious how they handle the minimums for those approaches that leave one so high AGL. As you may have noted from the MO6 VOR-A I put up, they don't designate a runway number on it either.
Sounds like fun to dust off at such low levels :) At least you don't have to worry about telephone or power lines in the canyon! ;D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 07:56:50 PM
Hmm.... where is it that you are from, Ryan? I'm just curious how they handle the minimums for those approaches that leave one so high AGL. As you may have noted from the MO6 VOR-A I put up, they don't designate a runway number on it either.
Sounds like fun to dust off at such low levels :) At least you don't have to worry about telephone or power lines in the canyon! ;D
I'm from Georgia (USA) but I'm in Alaska now... The reason the minimums are so high above the ground is that you have terrain only 200 ft below that elevation within a half mile each side of you! So really it's like the airport is in a deep hole and so the approach can't get you down inside the hole, only overtop of it.
I noticed that with the VOR, thought it was weird until I realized all the circling approaches never have them. ;)
Low level stuff is fun, although I'm still getting used to how things are done up here. We are legal for stuff that I never would have dreamed of in the lower 48. ;)
-Ryan
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 08:12:23 PM
Hmm.... where is it that you are from, Ryan? I'm just curious how they handle the minimums for those approaches that leave one so high AGL. As you may have noted from the MO6 VOR-A I put up, they don't designate a runway number on it either.
Sounds like fun to dust off at such low levels :) At least you don't have to worry about telephone or power lines in the canyon! ;D
I'm from Georgia (USA) but I'm in Alaska now... The reason the minimums are so high above the ground is that you have terrain only 200 ft below that elevation within a half mile each side of you! So really it's like the airport is in a deep hole and so the approach can't get you down inside the hole, only overtop of it.
I noticed that with the VOR, thought it was weird until I realized all the circling approaches never have them. ;)
Low level stuff is fun, although I'm still getting used to how things are done up here. We are legal for stuff that I never would have dreamed of in the lower 48. ;)
-Ryan
Ah, okay... now I understand :)
Sounds like you get to have quite a bit of IMC flying time around there :)
Must be really cool flying around with the Aurora Borealis aglow too :)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 08:21:47 PM
Hmm.... where is it that you are from, Ryan? I'm just curious how they handle the minimums for those approaches that leave one so high AGL. As you may have noted from the MO6 VOR-A I put up, they don't designate a runway number on it either.
Sounds like fun to dust off at such low levels :) At least you don't have to worry about telephone or power lines in the canyon! ;D
I'm from Georgia (USA) but I'm in Alaska now... The reason the minimums are so high above the ground is that you have terrain only 200 ft below that elevation within a half mile each side of you! So really it's like the airport is in a deep hole and so the approach can't get you down inside the hole, only overtop of it.
I noticed that with the VOR, thought it was weird until I realized all the circling approaches never have them. ;)
Low level stuff is fun, although I'm still getting used to how things are done up here. We are legal for stuff that I never would have dreamed of in the lower 48. ;)
-Ryan
Ah, okay... now I understand :)
Sounds like you get to have quite a bit of IMC flying time around there :)
Must be really cool flying around with the Aurora Borealis aglow too :)
I get a fair amount of IMC. Usually it's an hour or so each day. But that adds up fairly quickly when it's 5 or 6 days a week. ;)
Havn't seen the lights yet since it hasn't been dark... but I'm looking forward to the winter for that very reason!
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 12, 2006, 08:25:43 PM
Hmm.... where is it that you are from, Ryan? I'm just curious how they handle the minimums for those approaches that leave one so high AGL. As you may have noted from the MO6 VOR-A I put up, they don't designate a runway number on it either.
Sounds like fun to dust off at such low levels :) At least you don't have to worry about telephone or power lines in the canyon! ;D
I'm from Georgia (USA) but I'm in Alaska now... The reason the minimums are so high above the ground is that you have terrain only 200 ft below that elevation within a half mile each side of you! So really it's like the airport is in a deep hole and so the approach can't get you down inside the hole, only overtop of it.
I noticed that with the VOR, thought it was weird until I realized all the circling approaches never have them. ;)
Low level stuff is fun, although I'm still getting used to how things are done up here. We are legal for stuff that I never would have dreamed of in the lower 48. ;)
-Ryan
Ah, okay... now I understand :)
Sounds like you get to have quite a bit of IMC flying time around there :)
Must be really cool flying around with the Aurora Borealis aglow too :)
I get a fair amount of IMC. Usually it's an hour or so each day. But that adds up fairly quickly when it's 5 or 6 days a week. ;)
Havn't seen the lights yet since it hasn't been dark... but I'm looking forward to the winter for that very reason!
At least you don't have IFR Currency concerns :) Remember to post us some photos when you can with the Aurora when the time comes :) Love to see it :)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 08:30:49 PM
At least you don't have IFR Currency concerns :) Remember to post us some photos when you can with the Aurora when the time comes :) Love to see it :)
121 is wierd in currency anyway. I'm not PIC so I don't have to be, but the PIC gets 121 checkouts every 6 months anyway so they are always IFR current even if they don't actually go through a cloud. Of course, we don't have to worry about that part, we get plenty of actual...
I'll definately try to get a picture, I'm hoping to get some good ones (although I've been told it's hard to get a good photo of the Aurora).
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: happylanding on September 12, 2006, 09:39:59 PM
THANKS Mates for all the info! :) I could find a map of Lugano airport, the IFR one under this address: maybe it means something to you. you do not have to take tu qualification though, but if you ever decide to, here is the link: http://www.lugano-qualification.ch/ ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 12, 2006, 09:55:05 PM
THANKS Mates for all the info! :) I could find a map of Lugano airport, the IFR one under this address: maybe it means something to you. you do not have to take tu qualification though, but if you ever decide to, here is the link: http://www.lugano-qualification.ch/ ;) ;) ;)
Side note: every time you say "mates" I think "Australia!"
Any hints on where it is? I'm searching now...
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: happylanding on September 14, 2006, 06:21:58 AM
Since I was told it's used to align to the center line on final 01 it should be somewhere around it........ ??? ::)
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on September 14, 2006, 10:22:20 PM
Quote
We use King/Bendix KLN-90Bs in the 1900s, they are a popular unit because they are so capable yet not very expensive (relatively speaking). Is that $10,000 price tag for a KLN-90B or a pricier unit?
That was for a Garmin GNS420 I believe, and $10k was installed cost including all antennas, cables etc. It's an all-in-one package with IFR GPS, Comm, VOR/LOC and glideslope. Figured that was my best option since I can't get parts for my old KX-170B anymore. So the next time it breaks it's done. :( Which is a shame be cause it's been a great radio. Excellent range and clarity on both Comm and the VOR.
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 14, 2006, 10:54:19 PM
We use King/Bendix KLN-90Bs in the 1900s, they are a popular unit because they are so capable yet not very expensive (relatively speaking). Is that $10,000 price tag for a KLN-90B or a pricier unit?
That was for a Garmin GNS420 I believe, and $10k was installed cost including all antennas, cables etc. It's an all-in-one package with IFR GPS, Comm, VOR/LOC and glideslope. Figured that was my best option since I can't get parts for my old KX-170B anymore. So the next time it breaks it's done. :( Which is a shame be cause it's been a great radio. Excellent range and clarity on both Comm and the VOR.
Phil
Speaking of radio gear.... for Instrument Flying, and conventional VFR work for that matter, I carry a handheld and can hook it up to the external antennae via a BNC connector. Lots of people use ICOM brand, though I have found that I have more "bang for the buck" via my Sporty's SP-200, which gives me Comm and nav with VOR CDI "needle" capacity too. I haven't had to use it in flight yet, thank goodness, but it's nice to know it's there.
Just another two-cents worth I thought I'd toss in :D
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 15, 2006, 01:44:55 AM
What about a Garmin 430 if you're already to a 420.... 430 adds a nav built in...
Of course, in any case, always back stuff up! I had a 430 lock up on my before during my commercial training, was shooting a VOR approach and the needle was centered, had the other radio tuned in and saw them start to deviate. Everything seemed fine from a radio standpoint on the garmin. You could change frequencies and ID the station etc, but we realized it was partially locked up when messing with it... weird failure mode.
It's always good to back stuff up anyway though.
Something else: an HSI in place of the DG and an RMI for the ADF indicator is a wonderful addition. We have an HSI and RMI on each side, they are incredibly useful. RMIs have dual needles so you can have two VORs or a VOR and NDB or two NDBs tuned in (we have a few planes with dual ADFs) and see relative bearings at once. The HSI can really help your situational awareness as well, makes it incredibly to see what your intercept course is to a radial or ILS and you can do back course localizer without having to worry about reverse sensing.
As far as IGS approaches go: I said it in chat, but forgot to here, I did find an IGS into Lugano. There may be more than one but that one was an ILS with an 8.1 degree glideslope! It also had some pretty stringent climb gradiants to be able to go missed. I kind of don't have the link now though because I shut down the computer since then (oops).
So apparently the "IGS" approach is alive internationally, and seems to indicate an approach which has large deviations from standard and special requirements (IE larger than normal decent rates or large angle from approach course to the airport), but I still don't have an official definition of what IGS stands for and what makes an approach an IGS. Both IGS approaches found thus far were ILS based approaches.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on September 15, 2006, 03:25:24 AM
Well, Baradium. The list of avionics there is is worth about 3 times what my plane is. And wouldn't all fit in the Panel ;)
Maybe it was the 430 I was looking at, it did have a full NAV/Comm set up.
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Baradium on September 15, 2006, 04:03:45 AM
Well, Baradium. The list of avionics there is is worth about 3 times what my plane is. And wouldn't all fit in the Panel ;)
Maybe it was the 430 I was looking at, it did have a full NAV/Comm set up.
Phil
The HSI goes where your DG is, which you need for IFR anyway. ;) But yeah, that's why most airplanes don't have those...
BTW, saw a cow moose on the way home from the airport today (about a half mile to a mile from the airport heading towards Eielson). She was sitting about 10 feet off the highway munching on grass next to a highway sign.
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on September 17, 2006, 10:58:00 PM
My handheld GPS (Garmin Pilot III) has an HSI display that I love. All the nav info I need right there.
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 18, 2006, 04:34:50 PM
I most definitely agree with having an HSI if possible. Great piece of gear!
Next to the flexibility of the G-1000 type of electronic displays, in the "steam-guage" environment you can't beat having an HSI! If I were outfitting a plane, I'd consider it, and a backup attitude indicator such as the one available in the Sporty's catalog would be prime panel upgrades :) !
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: tundra_flier on September 27, 2006, 08:36:06 PM
Quote
Speaking of radio gear.... for Instrument Flying, and conventional VFR work for that matter, I carry a handheld and can hook it up to the external antennae via a BNC connector. Lots of people use ICOM brand, though I have found that I have more "bang for the buck" via my Sporty's SP-200, which gives me Comm and nav with VOR CDI "needle" capacity too. I haven't had to use it in flight yet, thank goodness, but it's nice to know it's there.
Just another two-cents worth I thought I'd toss in
I also carry a hand held Comm radio. Haven't used it in the air yet, but did use it on the ground once. Had a loose wire between my radio and the headphone jacks. Fortunately it manifested itself on the ground, I had to use the handheld to tell the tower I was canceling take-off and taxiing to my mechanics.
I bought my handheld back when I was flying the ultralight. Considered it my most important piece of safty equipment aside from the seat belt.
Phil
Title: Re: ILS
Post by: snader on February 04, 2007, 08:06:39 AM
I wrote a long story about this issue, if u really want to know go here: http://www.aircraftmech.com/avio.html
