Proper landing procedure

[whartsell]

Obviously, using the airport waypoint becomes a GPS version of a TACAN approach in terms of its inaccuracy, but any missions you start on the runway generates Waypoint 0 as the defacto TDZ. Its a shame there isn't a runway waypoint database to go with the aerodromes, but if you really cared you could add them in the mission flight plan or drop a mark point when you line up for takeoff. If you decide to come into a different airfield you could then use the TGP to make a markpoint at any threshold as well.

 

 

People should just read the whole damned CDU section, repeatedly. VNAV is however something I've never actually seen discussed on these forums before. If I'd never read the manual I'd never know it existed.

 

actually the lat/long of the threshold is in the Included Aerodrome Charts included in the Docs directory

[Ventus_Clu]

I believe the GR4 pilots often use the TGP when fitted just because it's easier and lets be honest the guy in the back doesn't do anything else anyway :music_whistling:

[whartsell]

One more thing just to be anal. When using IAM you should set your alt of the TDZ to the TDZ elevation +50 feet. Typically the glideslope is designed to bring you down over any obstacals to 50 feet above the TDZ elevation. Now the charts i mentioned do not list TDZ elevation for the runways. I dont know if DCS allowes sloped runways so its prolly not a big deal. Just thought i would mention it for completeness

[whartsell]

Additionally I think it might also be worth mentioning tactical approaches, these are approaches to airfields which have a distinct surface to air threat, be it RPG, MANPAD, SAFIRE etc. as opposed to SAM sites (In this case you'd probably use another airfield) Think Kandahar/ Camp Bastion. The airfield defence on the ground typically only have enough people to cover about 5-10 miles either side of the runway along the extended centreline. 5 typical 10 if your lucky. so a tactical approach is designed so your not flying around at 1500ft asking for someone to take shots at you with their AK47 etc.

 

The idea is to be high and then throttle off for decent to reduce your heat signature and make you as harder target to hit as possible.

 

There are 3 main types of Tactical approach which can be done by just about any aircraft (personally I've seen Tucanos all the way up to USN P-3's and C-17's use these approaches)

 

10,000ft Straight in... basically as it says on the tin, get to about 10 miles final at 10,000ft QFE and I believe the decent point is about 6 miles, then open up everything (airbrake, flaps even landing gear is lowered on GR4's) and throw the aircraft in a dive with no throttle. Procedures differ but you should be visual BY 1000ft QFE otherwise it's go around circuit height. If you are visual then level out and you should hit a 3 degree GP by about 1 mile.

 

10,000ft Run in and break... This is just a normal visual join except you begin at 10,000ft QFE, and initial call should be made at about 4 miles (offset to the deadside) so the tower controller can tell you about visual circuit traffic, again procedures differ but a good rule would be... If not visual (in this instance visual means both airfield AND circuit traffic) by 1500ft QFE then break off into a max rate climb... if visual then descend to 1000ft QFE and execute a standard break into the circuit. no need to worry about speed for this as you will bleed it all off in the break into the circuit.

 

 

Blackhole Approach... This is a little trickier, begin at 10,000ft QFE and fly to initial point (but remain at 10,000ft) then begin your decent and follow the ground track of a normal visual circuit but in a decent that will get you to a height on your finals turn that you can land from, takes a little practice. Again visual with airfield and aircraft by 1500ft or go around at 1500ft and descend to circuit height when dead side.

 

With all approaches throttle can be used short final but any further out you risk making too much of a heat signature. Also individual airfield procedures differ and the information regarding both missed approaches and minimum descent heights are what's used at my airfield and are SAFE (it's hard enough to dodge SAM's and AAM's let alone friendly aircraft)

 

Hope this also helps.

 

We dont have them in DCSWorld but alot of fast movers also have an HI-ILS approach that starts anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000+ feet and is a very rapid decent. An example can be found here

[Headspace]

It seems that the QFE/QNH usage is an ICAO thing, because it does not come up at all in the civilian IFR curriculum in the US. In the system, we use altimeter settings in inches of mercury and then switch to 29.92 in the flight levels (above transition altitude), FL180 and above, class A airspace.

 

You're expected (as a pilot) to know the TDZE on an approach and have the plate for the approach. The published DH is going to be in MSL.

It seems that the QFE/QNH usage is an ICAO thing, because it does not come up at all in the civilian IFR curriculum in the US. In the system, we use altimeter settings in inches of mercury and then switch to 29.92 in the flight levels (above transition altitude), FL180 and above, class A airspace.

 

You're expected (as a pilot) to know the TDZE on an approach and have the plate for the approach. The published DH is going to be in MSL.

In real world ATC operations there are three main ways I think that you're brought into an airfield:

 

1. ATC follows you through approach on a predetermined flight plan/wayopints giving/clearing altitude constraints and possible course deviations/holds and then gives you vectors to intercept an ILS localizer and glideslope or final fix for landing.

 

2. ATC follows you through approach on a predetermined flight plan/waypoints just like above, but without any vectors and the flight plan/waypoints spit you out onto final where you get clearance to land.

 

3. ATC gives you clearance to fly a Visual Approach to the runway.

I can't speak for how the military does it, P*Funk, but that is generally how it works in GA.

 

There is always going to be a published approach for any given ILS, which involves one or more initial approach fixes and a way to join the localizer. Being vectored by ATC is almost always faster and in the GA system I have never seen an ILS been given in my area without vectors unless the person said "hey, we'd like to fly the ILS as published."

 

There is also something called a contact approach which bears some similarity to a visual approach, but has to be requested explicitly. There are different rules for this approach and I've never requested one since there are almost always safer ways of doing things.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Headspace

[PFunk1606688187]

There is always going to be a published approach for any given ILS, which involves one or more initial approach fixes and a way to join the localizer. Being vectored by ATC is almost always faster and in the GA system I have never seen an ILS been given in my area without vectors unless the person said "hey, we'd like to fly the ILS as published."

 

As I understand it in general the published ILS approaches are used mostly in highly congested airspace at busy airports and that usually means commercial aircraft. The published approaches give ATC the option of having lots of aircraft enter published approaches and lets them leave them be with the only real concern being issuing a speed restriction to ensure separation is maintained. Even so, from what I've been told even busy commercial airports will often bypass the published approach and vector onto final because the published approach is longer and slower and serves no purpose if the airspace isn't busy enough to justify that. Additionally I've been told that flying visual even in big jets like 777s and 747s is common enough because its even faster and any air traffic can be "daisy chained" together with every craft instructed to follow the one in front visually.

 

I would imagine GA often doesn't deal with these issues because large airports are often very unfriendly to GA aircraft and have high prices for landing.

 

Incidentally the 777 that crashed recently at SFO was on a visual approach I believe, and the ILS glideslope was nonfunctional due to ground construction, while the localizer was the only instrument available for guidance. I believe all the aircraft on that approach at the time were going visual as well, if I recall the info in the threads over at Airliners.net correctly.

 

People who REALLY want to get a sharp understanding of landing procedures and methodology, both in the approach management category as well as a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the aircraft itself during a landing, should probably check out the FSX side of simming. That community has no bombs and no explosions to entertain them, but they do have VATSIM and lots of technical nerding out to distract them, so if you want to know how "fly by the numbers" its probably a better place to go other than when you need specifics on the A-10 or the particulars of what goes on inside the ED sim.

 

I'm personally looking forward to improved ATC in the next patch.

[Ventus_Clu]

Another place you'll see a lot of aircraft using the published ILS is on airfields with no radar.

 

Have ED announced when an update to ATC will actually happen?

[PFunk1606688187]

Have ED announced when an update to ATC will actually happen?

 

I believe its been slated for 1.2.5.

[Headspace]

As I understand it in general the published ILS approaches are used mostly in highly congested airspace at busy airports and that usually means commercial aircraft. The published approaches give ATC the option of having lots of aircraft enter published approaches and lets them leave them be with the only real concern being issuing a speed restriction to ensure separation is maintained. Even so, from what I've been told even busy commercial airports will often bypass the published approach and vector onto final because the published approach is longer and slower and serves no purpose if the airspace isn't busy enough to justify that. Additionally I've been told that flying visual even in big jets like 777s and 747s is common enough because its even faster and any air traffic can be "daisy chained" together with every craft instructed to follow the one in front visually.

You may be confusing an IAP with a STAR. The latter is used in high congestion areas for bringing large amounts of traffic in on predetermined routes. You can file to a large airport but you must have the published STARs available to you if your clearance includes one.

I would imagine GA often doesn't deal with these issues because large airports are often very unfriendly to GA aircraft and have high prices for landing.

Flying to a big airport in GA isn't often that big of a deal, excepting the huge airports like ORD, LAX, EWR and so on. It is usually easier getting into a Bravo on an IFR clearance than it is VFR, because there's no guarantee that they'll actually let you in if you go VFR. The problem arises when GA traffic shows up that isn't on the ball, because controllers in those areas don't have time to troubleshoot a confused pilot. It's a very busy environment.

Incidentally the 777 that crashed recently at SFO was on a visual approach I believe, and the ILS glideslope was nonfunctional due to ground construction, while the localizer was the only instrument available for guidance. I believe all the aircraft on that approach at the time were going visual as well, if I recall the info in the threads over at Airliners.net correctly.

Visual is always quicker. Localizer-only approaches exist, but for an approach to be useable there needs to be a published IAP. Let's say there was an airport with an ILS on one side of the runway and none for the opposite direction. You would only be allowed to do a backcourse approach if a published IAP existed. If it isn't published it doesn't exist for purposes of the IFR system.

People who REALLY want to get a sharp understanding of landing procedures and methodology, both in the approach management category as well as a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the aircraft itself during a landing, should probably check out the FSX side of simming. That community has no bombs and no explosions to entertain them, but they do have VATSIM and lots of technical nerding out to distract them, so if you want to know how "fly by the numbers" its probably a better place to go other than when you need specifics on the A-10 or the particulars of what goes on inside the ED sim.

 

I'm personally looking forward to improved ATC in the next patch.

Or you could read the FAA's instrument flying handbook, especially the chapter on the national airspace system.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Headspace

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It seems that the QFE/QNH usage is an ICAO thing, because it does not come up at all in the civilian IFR curriculum in the US. In the system, we use altimeter settings in inches of mercury and then switch to 29.92 in the flight levels (above transition altitude), FL180 and above, class A airspace.

 

QFE is really only useful in the visual circuit, probably why it doesn't come up in IFR curriculum (FAA or ICAO). That's just a guess as a lowly VFR pilot though.

 

As I understand it in general the published ILS approaches are used mostly in highly congested airspace at busy airports and that usually means commercial aircraft. The published approaches give ATC the option of having lots of aircraft enter published approaches and lets them leave them be with the only real concern being issuing a speed restriction to ensure separation is maintained. Even so, from what I've been told even busy commercial airports will often bypass the published approach and vector onto final because the published approach is longer and slower and serves no purpose if the airspace isn't busy enough to justify that. Additionally I've been told that flying visual even in big jets like 777s and 747s is common enough because its even faster and any air traffic can be "daisy chained" together with every craft instructed to follow the one in front visually.

 

I think you might be thinking of a procedural ILS approach. This is where you have to enter a hold or carry out a procedure turn before establishing on the final approach course.

 

A published approach is just that, published (on a chart) for use. I believe it has to be published for it to be legal, otherwise pilots won't know final approach fix altitudes, decision altitude/height etc.

 

As you point out entering holds or carrying out procedure turns takes time; vectoring is not only faster but allows ATC to cram more planes in, especially when visual approaches are given (this moves separation responsibility from ATC to the pilots IIRC). This is predominantly a US thing, at least for busy international airports. You won't get visual approaches into major European hubs for example. There maybe exceptions, but I think that's generally the case.

 

I think my FSX is showing :book:

[Headspace]

QFE is really only useful in the visual circuit, probably why it doesn't come up in IFR curriculum (FAA or ICAO). That's just a guess as a lowly VFR pilot though.

I never heard of it outside of gaming. Even in the entry level ground school course taught in the flight program at the university here (it was 18 years ago, but I'm sure things haven't changed) it was never mentioned. It did not come up at all in the private pilot curriculum or the study materials. Each field has a pattern altitude, given in MSL. You get the alitimeter setting and fly the altitude. Effectively, we only use QNH.

I think you might be thinking of a procedural ILS approach. This is where you have to enter a hold or carry out a procedure turn before establishing on the final approach course.

 

A published approach is just that, published (on a chart) for use. I believe it has to be published for it to be legal, otherwise pilots won't know final approach fix altitudes, decision altitude/height etc.

If an ILS approach is not published (in the form of an IAP) it isn't legal to use, period. It effectively doesn't exist. An ILS approach with a procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is going to have certain rules for when the user has to fly it. If vectors are given to the localizer, the hold/PT is often not necessary.

 

The bottom line is that there are degrees of control by which ATC moves traffic onto an ILS, but it the IAP is always published, regardless. At least in the USA.

As you point out entering holds or carrying out procedure turns takes time; vectoring is not only faster but allows ATC to cram more planes in, especially when visual approaches are given (this moves separation responsibility from ATC to the pilots IIRC). This is predominantly a US thing, at least for busy international airports. You won't get visual approaches into major European hubs for example. There maybe exceptions, but I think that's generally the case.

 

I think my FSX is showing :book:

I cannot imagine that a European airport wouldn't allow visual approaches to be carried out, but I would like to hear from an European pilot on how that works.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I never heard of it outside of gaming.

 

It's very common in the UK and I can't remember any time it's not been passed to me by a controller when inbound to join the traffic patern. As I said earlier, my FAA instructor had never even heard of it, so I'm not surprised you don't use it.

 

I cannot imagine that a European airport wouldn't allow visual approaches to be carried out, but I would like to hear from an European pilot on how that works.

 

Normally vectors to ILS, at least at major UK airports. I'm not an airline pilot though so I'm not sure if they can't, they just don't seem to.

 

From what I gather, visual approaches seem to be a US thing. :joystick:

[St3v3f]

I believe its been slated for 1.2.5.

 

That was one month ago, in the last friday's changelog it doesn't appear anymore

[Sharpe_95]

That was one month ago, in the last friday's changelog it doesn't appear anymore

 

Improved ATC: Another great feature left behind - but at least we have shiny Reapers.....:doh:

 

-Sharpe

[NoCarrier]

I cannot imagine that a European airport wouldn't allow visual approaches to be carried out, but I would like to hear from an European pilot on how that works.

Not a pilot, but I don't think visual approaches and VFR are one and the same. For example, the Wikipedia article on visual approaches states right off the bat that "a visual approach is an approach to a runway at an airport conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR) by which the pilot proceeds by visual reference and clear of clouds to the airport."

 

As far as I can tell, Flamin_Squirrel has it right. The airspace around Schiphol (EHAM) is Class A, for example, which means VFR is just not allowed. ICAO/EASA regulations include a proviso for Special VFR into Class A, but it seems you'll have to have a damn good reason for asking.

 

EDIT: And no, "I'm a VFR pilot and I'll go where I want to!" is not a good reason... ;)

[Headspace]

Not a pilot, but I don't think visual approaches and VFR are one and the same. For example, the Wikipedia article on visual approaches states right off the bat that "a visual approach is an approach to a runway at an airport conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR) by which the pilot proceeds by visual reference and clear of clouds to the airport."

They're not, but in practice, the pattern work done with the control tower is the same whether or not the arriving aircraft is transitioning from the enroute environment IFR or just arriving VFR. It's true that the words "visual approach" are used in an IFR context, because why qualify it as visual otherwise.

As far as I can tell, Flamin_Squirrel has it right. The airspace around Schiphol (EHAM) is Class A, for example, which means VFR is just not allowed. ICAO/EASA regulations include a proviso for Special VFR into Class A, but it seems you'll have to have a damn good reason for asking.

My guess is that where GA isn't as popular or widespread, it's easier just to move everyone around in the system for convenience at airports that service heavy volumes of traffic.

[whartsell]

Just to clarify things for people who havent picked up on it VFR and IFR have nothing to do with weather conditions.

 

VFR and IFR are what "requirements" the flight is being operated under.

 

IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) and VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) are the weather you are currently operating in.

 

The common term "Cleared Visual...." is used in VMC Conditions only. There are also cases where you will get a Named visual approach. Here in Austin there is the "I-35 Visual approach" even though its a VMC only procedure there is an approach plate for it and it lists visibility and ceiling requirements.

 

What Constitutes VMC is determined by what airspace you are operating in. I will not go into details on that

 

Also EHAM is UK CLASS A not ICAO CLASS A (confusing to us Americans)

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Headspace

I cannot imagine that a European airport wouldn't allow visual approaches to be carried out, but I would like to hear from an European pilot on how that works.

 

Yep, they do allow visuals to some extent. Usually arrival on a STAR whereby, at some point, you're taken off it with vectors for an OM lineup and proceed visually once the rwy is in sight. It's often commuter/shorthaul traffic that does this sort of thing but 'heavies' are doing it as well.

Edited July 22, 2013 by chaos

[chaos]

Also EHAM is UK CLASS A not ICAO CLASS A (confusing to us Americans)

 

That's interesting... I'm a regular at AMS but wasn't aware of this. :-) What's the difference and does it even matter?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

That's interesting... I'm a regular at AMS but wasn't aware of this. :-) What's the difference and does it even matter?

 

It's important.

 

I'll give some examples, this list isn't exhaustive:

 

Class A in the states is present above 18,000 and is available to IFR traffic only. In the UK, level flights above FL195 are protected by class C airspace. In practical terms, again only of any use to IFR traffic so there isn't much difference, other than the letter allocated.

 

Around major airports in the UK you'll find Class A airspace which extends from the base of class C downwards (usually down to ~1,500ft MSL, with the exception of Heathrow, which is down to ground level) and is only available to IFR traffic. In the US, you'll find class B airspace. Unlike the UK, this is available to VFR traffic (pending clearance to enter). US class B around major hubs will also have a ceiling, meaning if you can't get a clearance to enter, you can simply fly over the top of it (not an option in the UK as the class A extends to the base of class C).

 

Less busy hubs in the states will be protected by class C. This is available to VFR, with the only pre-requisite being 2-way communications established with ATC (you don't need a formal clearance). Hubs (other than Heathrow) in the UK are protected by class D (or E) airspace from surface to ~1,500ft. VFR can transit through class D, but you DO need a clearance, and it's hit or miss whether you'll get it.

 

In other words, the US controlled airspace is less restrictive to VFR than in the UK (and there is much less of it).

 

Oh, and another thing; landing fees are rare to non-existant in the US. Land at Gatwick in a Cessna 172 and don't expect to get much change from £2,000.

 

I wish general aviation in the UK was as cheap and as well accommodated as it is in the US!

[Headspace]

Oh, and another thing; landing fees are rare to non-existant in the US.

They do exist in some areas but the real concern is the ramp fees that most FBOs charge at large airports. Unless you're not interested in parking the plane, you will be subject to these.

[chaos]

It's important.

/QUOTE]

 

I see... Important to VFR GA traffic... Haven't flown VFR in almost 20 years. Oh no, getting old!

Thx for taking the time to explain it in-depth.

[jay43]

It's important.

 

I'll give some examples, this list isn't exhaustive:

 

Class A in the states is present above 18,000 and is available to IFR traffic only. In the UK, level flights above FL195 are protected by class C airspace. In practical terms, again only of any use to IFR traffic so there isn't much difference, other than the letter allocated.

 

Around major airports in the UK you'll find Class A airspace which extends from the base of class C downwards (usually down to ~1,500ft MSL, with the exception of Heathrow, which is down to ground level) and is only available to IFR traffic. In the US, you'll find class B airspace. Unlike the UK, this is available to VFR traffic (pending clearance to enter). US class B around major hubs will also have a ceiling, meaning if you can't get a clearance to enter, you can simply fly over the top of it (not an option in the UK as the class A extends to the base of class C).

 

Less busy hubs in the states will be protected by class C. This is available to VFR, with the only pre-requisite being 2-way communications established with ATC (you don't need a formal clearance). Hubs (other than Heathrow) in the UK are protected by class D (or E) airspace from surface to ~1,500ft. VFR can transit through class D, but you DO need a clearance, and it's hit or miss whether you'll get it.

 

In other words, the US controlled airspace is less restrictive to VFR than in the UK (and there is much less of it).

 

Oh, and another thing; landing fees are rare to non-existant in the US. Land at Gatwick in a Cessna 172 and don't expect to get much change from £2,000.

 

I wish general aviation in the UK was as cheap and as well accommodated as it is in the US!

 

Can you land a Cesna at Gatwick don't think its allowed at Heathrow I did ask the question and was told no only private jets and only allowed to be on the hard stand at T4 and no air bridge docking allowed stairs and bus to terminal only prices start from £3000 allegedly.

In an emergency yes but you will be charged full price.

Ever wondered why you get off the budget airlines down to the bus transfer because in order to keep prices low they don't want to pay airbridge reservation fees and docking fees.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Can you land a Cesna at Gatwick don't think its allowed at Heathrow I did ask the question and was told no only private jets and only allowed to be on the hard stand at T4 and no air bridge docking allowed stairs and bus to terminal only prices start from £3000 allegedly.

In an emergency yes but you will be charged full price.

Ever wondered why you get off the budget airlines down to the bus transfer because in order to keep prices low they don't want to pay airbridge reservation fees and docking fees.

 

Well, theory and practice may differ. The Gatwick control zone is class D, so nothing in the rules in that respect against landing a Cessna there. I've seen photos that someone's passenger took of them doing just that. However, IFR takes priority, so ATC may well turn you away. I'd certainly phone ahead if I planned on doing so myself!

 

Heathrow is in class A. This is off limits to VFR, but is available to Special VFR. So in theory it maybe possible, but in practice it's so busy that the chances of it being approved are tiny. Then there are the practical implications that you've pointed out, which you're probably right about.

 

Emergency situations are an interesting one. I know there's an initiative that some airports have signed up to that means they'll waive any fees to GA traffic in a genuine emergency situation. I'm not sure if Gatwick is one of them.

[Echo38]

That's horrible! They discourage pilots from making emergency landings by threatening them with enormous fines? And no one is bothered that they're endangering the pilots by doing this?