Schlapperklange

Iac Ils Rwy 09

Recommended Posts

I am working on an instrument approach chart for ILS RWY 09.

What do you think about this procedure?

post-17807-12816247386_thumb.jpg

The final chart will look like a usual DFS chart.

Regards,

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working on an instrument approach chart for ILS RWY 09.

What do you think about this procedure?

post-17807-12816247386_thumb.jpg

The final chart will look like a usual DFS chart.

Regards,

Alex

Looks fine to me firsthand - Ill look at it more closely tomorrow - thanks a lot for the contribution!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working on an instrument approach chart for ILS RWY 09.

Alex,

When I designed the scenery (or in this case I rather 'made it up') I had the exact same thing in my mind.

So: I do like it!

But what makes me curious is the detail of the vertical profile of the approach.

Andras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,

When I designed the scenery (or in this case I rather 'made it up') I had the exact same thing in my mind.

So: I do like it!

But what makes me curious is the detail of the vertical profile of the approach.

Andras

It is really difficult to adjust all data. I am not sure I can fill all.

Also I have difficulties to bring it to a scale. FlighSim Commander doesn't show the NDB and VOR. Are their coordinates somewhere published?

I also had to change ILS CRS to 089° to get the runway lined up.

The steep GP of 5.00° let's you intercept the GP at 5.6 DME ANF, which makes it a quite short final. What is your opinion about that - raising intercept altitude to 6000?

Here is an update on the work in progress:

post-17807-128168508722_thumb.jpg

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New update:

post-17807-128169675221_thumb.jpg

The chart should be useble now. Maybe someone can do some test-flights and report experience and report errors or make suggestions for improvements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Work!

I was thinking about the same thing some weeks ago, but only realised in a first step the necessary changes for some navigraph files to see Andras Field in my Mustang.

Do you still need the data for the NDB and VOR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Work!

I was thinking about the same thing some weeks ago, but only realised in a first step the necessary changes for some navigraph files to see Andras Field in my Mustang.

Do you still need the data for the NDB and VOR?

Yes, the coordinates would be nice to know.

And I need some help on the OCA (OCH) and Timing entries.

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,

that's what I got from Andras:

The exact pos of the two are:

VOR: N47* 39.0696' E10* 46.4375'

NDB: N47* 38.8636' E10* 44.5232'

both of ALT 777 m

Regarding OCH I think: Das musst Du Dir aus den Fingern saugen" :D

And as I remember the DH depends on type of aircraft/airline procedures/pilots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

With regards the minima for the approach with the lighting we have at Andras we can only really consider it a CatI approach. So we'd be looking at a DH of not less than 200ft. The problem is this only applies for glideslopes up to 4 deg. I've just had a look at London City's 09 app (another 5.5 deg slope) suggests the following:

CAT A B C

OCH (384) (414) (444)

With this in Mind I'd suggest a minimum RVR 0f 1200M with the available lighting.

Your chart is way better than my scribbled attempts. Well done!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,

that's what I got from Andras:

Regarding OCH I think: Das musst Du Dir aus den Fingern saugen" :D

And as I remember the DH depends on type of aircraft/airline procedures/pilots

Ok, that's what happened ;)

post-17807-128177802255_thumb.jpg

Alex

post-17807-128173063819_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

With regards the minima for the approach with the lighting we have at Andras we can only really consider it a CatI approach. So we'd be looking at a DH of not less than 200ft. The problem is this only applies for glideslopes up to 4 deg. I've just had a look at London City's 09 app (another 5.5 deg slope) suggests the following:

CAT A B C

OCH (384) (414) (444)

With this in Mind I'd suggest a minimum RVR 0f 1200M with the available lighting.

Your chart is way better than my scribbled attempts. Well done!!

I didn't see your post. I entered an OCA of 450 for all classes. But I will adopt your suggestions and change the chart - it seems to be more realistic. Also I delete classes D and E. They shouldn't operate from Andras Field at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this only applies for glideslopes up to 4 deg. I've just had a look at London City's 09 app (another 5.5 deg slope)

Hi,

This brings another perhaps important question.

Should the slope be less than 5 degrees?

Frankly when I did the design part of it, I didn't have the sufficient time to test all possibilities, so it became like this just to be on the safe side.

So folks, who made those approaches much more often than I did, could answer it, because it is possible that I wanted to be just too safe...

Andras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a pic that shows the the position (calculated 6.8 DME ANF) on that you would intercept G/S on a 4.0° approach.

It seems possible, but over the hill you might come below OCA of 444 ft. And LOC-DME should be prohibited!

I my opinion it is too dangerous.

post-17807-128177802255_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's what happened ;)

post-17807-128177802255_thumb.jpg

Alex

Just one error I see on the chart is the missed approach information. You state a RT when in fact it should read LT. Just a minor issue but well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just picked up on another minor error after a test flight. On the chart you leave KPT heading 135 till 7DME KPT then all other references to the ILS is on the ANF VOR!! Shouldn't the references refering to ANF be amended to read APK and all distance (DME's) refer to APK?

I say this as this is how the Navigraph charts are. Also, trying to fly the glide slope for APK on the ANF VOR is blasted hard!! Just an observation but thought I would point it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just picked up on another minor error after a test flight. On the chart you leave KPT heading 135 till 7DME KPT then all other references to the ILS is on the ANF VOR!! Shouldn't the references refering to ANF be amended to read APK and all distance (DME's) refer to APK?

I say this as this is how the Navigraph charts are. Also, trying to fly the glide slope for APK on the ANF VOR is blasted hard!! Just an observation but thought I would point it out.

I don't know the Navigraph charts. I also don't know APK. I think you mean AFK, the ILS.

Take a look the the DFS charts and you will find out, that all DME related numbers are never related to an "ILS-DME". If the ILS is not working, you need another DME for your approach. This may be a VOR-DME or a stand-alone DME.

If you saw something different, please tell me for what airport so I can check it out.

But there is an error in the profile: I forgot to change the 7.5 DME KPT to 7.0 DME KPT. It will be corrected in the final release, in which I will add a chart for ILS RWY 27 and maybe STAR and SID charts - but after my vacation ... expect 5 weeks minimum :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are obviously talking cross porposes here as what I see and read is different to what you see/read in relation to the type of chart it is. I see it as an ILS/DME which acording to the airport diagram is on a frequency of 109.55 (AFK) for Rwy 09. You are using the VOR on 115.0 (ANF) which is a VOR. The chart states at the Top Right Corner it is an ILS CAT I and unless I'm totally wrong or missing something then please take a look at the attached Navigraph chart for East Midlands EGNX.

post-12981-128199782531_thumb.jpg

I apologies in advance if I am wrong or missinterpreting the type of chart you are producing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

a bit OT, but you know that you can get all European charts for free directly from Eurocontrol? You don't have to spend money for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are obviously talking cross porposes here as what I see and read is different to what you see/read in relation to the type of chart it is. I see it as an ILS/DME which acording to the airport diagram is on a frequency of 109.55 (AFK) for Rwy 09. You are using the VOR on 115.0 (ANF) which is a VOR. The chart states at the Top Right Corner it is an ILS CAT I and unless I'm totally wrong or missing something then please take a look at the attached Navigraph chart for East Midlands EGNX.

post-12981-128199782531_thumb.jpg

I apologies in advance if I am wrong or missinterpreting the type of chart you are producing.

Ok, I give you an example, here for Frankfurt (EDDF) ILS CAT II & III or LOC for RWY 07R:

post-17807-128203959086_thumb.jpg

You can see here that the approches begin related to RID or TAU VOR until turning to intercept the ILS. Then DME is related to FRD, which is just a DME, nor an ILS neither a VOR.

I did it in a similar way in my chart. Maybe in UK it is different. But the reason why I refer to a german DFS chart is clear: Andras Field lies in german airspace.

If you have difficulties to fly the approach try to do it as followed:

Use NAV 1 to fly on 135° radial from KPT and tune ANF on NAV 2. At 7.0 DME KPT turn left HDG 115, tune AFK on NAV 1 and intercept the ILS. Switch DME to read NAV 2. Intercept G/S at 5.6 DME ANF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

a bit OT,

No, just attention to detail. I think the chart(s) that will be produced will be great but, again, attention to detail.

but you know that you can get all European charts for free directly from Eurocontrol? You don't have to spend money for them.

Yes, but each to their own. I use Navigraph for so many things it costs peanuts....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.