Air Navigation Institute

Flight Procedure Design Discussion Forum
It is currently Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:18 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:26 am
Posts: 199
Location: Interlaken/Switzerland
More and more we are facing the issue that Instrument Approaches are flown to Aerodromes that are safeguarded with non-instrument criteria according Annex 14. Various states handle this in different ways. The IFPP/Aerodromes Panel Task Force is looking at the issue, but it will take a while until an official guidance will be published. However, I would like to offer a method, which is used in Switzerland as from January 1, 2010. Unfortunately their service order is only available in German at the moment. Here is a summary:

1. If an Aerodrome has a RWY safeguarded according non-instrument criteria, these OLS must be free of penetration to start with.
2. The OLS according the desired approach procedure must be assessed. This will be used as a basis for a) marking and lighting and b) setting the MDA/H on top of the PANS-OPS OCA/H.
3. The MDA will be set above the PANS-OPS OCA by the highest amount of penetration of an obstacle into the instrument approach OLS. No obstacles that are irrelevant will be considered, that is: the area where penetrating obstacles are accounted for is from the beginning to the end of the RWY strip longitudinally and to where the Transitional Surface connects with the Inner Horizontal Surface laterally. It is considered that before and after, PANS-OPS provides enough protection (VSS on the approach end, Missed Approach procedure on the other end).
4. The corrected MDH is never below 500ft nor higher than the Circling OCH. If no Circling OCH is published at the Aerodrome, it must be calculated first (not necessarily published).

These criteria were validated in flight and showed sufficient time for the crew to identify the obstacle situation when becoming visual.
Please note that if you want to apply a similar thing, it must be approved by the Regulatory Authority, as it is not an official ICAO guideline.

_________________
Visit Air Navigation Institute on Facebook http://www.facebook.com
Course overview and schedules on http://www.ani.aero
New: Course in Statistics and Data analysis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:33 am
Posts: 59
Hi,

this is indeed a very interesting issue. I tried to find the official paper, but without any luck.

Therefore I would like to ask, if you could provide a link to the document including all the details (although being available German language only)? I assume the Swiss make those documents public available :-)


Thanks in advance
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:26 am
Posts: 199
Location: Interlaken/Switzerland
Yes. http://www.bazl.admin.ch/fachleute/flug ... bNoKSn6A--
The issue will be however regulated on ICAO Annex level shortly. The definitions of precision approach runway, non precision runway and non-instrument runway will change so the infrastructure is associated with the lowest possible achievable minimum and not the type of approach. In other words, a non-instrument runway will be a runway used for visual approaches or instrument approaches down to not lower than the lowest flight altitude for visual flight (which is in most States 500ft). A non-precision will be a runway used for instrument approaches to not lower than 250ft, if you want to achieve a minimum below that you need a precision runway, etc.
Cannot reveal a timeframe when it happens, but only the fact THAT it will happen.
Note, that in Germany such exceptions do not apply. An instrument approach to a non-instrument runway is not possible in Germany with the current legislation.

_________________
Visit Air Navigation Institute on Facebook http://www.facebook.com
Course overview and schedules on http://www.ani.aero
New: Course in Statistics and Data analysis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:33 am
Posts: 59
Hi,

thank you very much for the link to the document and the insights regarding the plans of ICAO. Very interesting, but actually kind of overdue - also thinking about APV...

Best regards
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 11:32 am
Posts: 3
Hello Beat

I see that this topic was discussed some time ago and as my German is a little rusty I am hoping you, or another designer, can help me with an issue I have.

I have recently designed an RNAV (GNSS) approach to a military airfield (Australia) that does not have RWY lighting and has a RWY surface width of less than 300m (CASA guidline - cannot find this anywhere else). The procedure is for military aircraft only. Some operators will use it at night (on NVG's) aware that there isn't any lighting available.

The MDA is calculated at greater than 500ft AGL and there are no penetrations of any surfaces in the procedure (using FPDAM).

What are your thoughts on publishing this procedure with the limitations specified? Is there anything further I need to consider?

Thank you

Jamie Brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:16 am
Posts: 14
Location: Berlin, Germany
Hello Beat,

I've seen that you presented that solution to the IFPP in March 2010. Is there any news from IFPP/ICAO perspective?

Thanks in advance
MK


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group