8314ever

So this is from PPRN - pulling from the FAA reg posted earlier...HAD THIS ERROR/OMISSION BEEN CAUGHT, WOULD ANY A300 BE FLYING ANY APPROACH (LOC OR RNAV) TO RUNWAY 18 AT NIGHT??

THIS SEEMS BIG:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Rewind - Was any 18 approach legal...for aircraft in 'Height Cat 4'
Forget the flight path analysis for one minute and back up.

So a thread on another website quoted a FAA Joint Order that pertains to Visual Guidance Lighting Systems. I am asking if anyone else reads this the same way I do and therefore questions the legality of an A-300 size aircraft being filed/dispatched to a runway under IFR flight plan when the PAPI system was REQUIRED to be operational for either instrument approach to the operating runway BUT the PAPI system settings were NOT COMPLIANT with that size aircraft? However you interpret this, please respond.

----------------------
I am NOT questioning the legality or obstacle clearance of either FAA instrument approach to runway 18. I am questioning why/how the approaches aren't restricted at night to aircraft that comply with the existing and mandatory PAPIs.

LOC and RNAV 18 have TCH of 48feet - Look at the last sentence of the second paragraph along with the required TCH for 'Height group 4' (A-300 specifically listed)

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Full FAA JO here:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%206850.2B.pdf

Simms41

Been a tough year for aviation...Godspeed

cougar

Reference:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m..._Chgs_1-25.pdf, Page 305.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ght_Values.pdf

FAA 8260.3B CHG 19 Vol 3 Page 2-9 Par 2.6.3 Table 2-3. TCH Requirements

Table 2-3

NOTES:
1. To determine the minimum allowable TCH, add 20 feet to the glidepath-to-wheel height.

2. To determine the maximum allowable TCH, add 50 feet to the glidepath-to-wheel height (PA not to exceed 60 ft.).

3. Publish a note indicating VGSI not coincident with the procedure GPA when the VGSI angle is more than 0.2° from the GPA, or when the VGSI TCH is more than 3 feet from the procedure TCH.


It appears minimum TCH for Height Group 4 is 45'.

8314ever

Good reference on TCHs in 8260 and that FAA memo, BUT those are all in reference to Glide Path (electronic) TCHs (LPV, ILS), whereas the page out of the JO 6850 applies specifically to runways with PAPIs and NO electronic glide slope - ie BHM18

FWIW the same info on TCH for runways with electronic glide slope and the .2 degree coincidence limit appears in the 6850

8260:
2.6 GLIDE SLOPE THRESHOLD CROSSING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
2.6.1 Category I Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) Requirements.
2.6.2 Category II and III TCH Requirements.

6850:
503. Siting PAPI on a runway without an electronic glide slope.

8314ever

I meant to say, those references fr 8620 and memo are for TCHs of electronic glide slopes AND VGSIs combined with electronic glide slopes...as opposed to runways with only PAPIs.

Also (as pointed out on PPRN), a question as significant is: where in the world is the annotation for pilots/dispatchers/planners that specifies the PAPIs for 18, which are mandatory at night, aren't compliant for HG4 aircraft!?! NOTAMs, AFD, Approach procedures???

KC10 FATboy

I've tried to read your post. But I can't follow it.

Can you explain why you think the lights aren't properly aligned?

savall

Yeah, I'm having a hard time following too. That information is all nice and dandy, but the PAPI was working, and from what I recall, the NTSB has already stated it was within the proper alignment.

USMCFLYR

He is publishing the JO which states that a PAPI sited on a runway without an electronic glideslope requires a TCH of 75' (+5'/-15') for height group 4 aircraft of which the A-300 is one.
Therefore he is questioning whether an A-300 (or any other HG4 aircraft) should have been using those PAPIs since they don't provide the minimum TCH (47.7')
Since you need the VGSI operating in order to legally shoot this approach at night - he is stating that an A-300 should not have been allowed to shoot this approach at night.

An interesting aside to this is whether they should have been sited with the mins appropriate for a HG4 aircraft. The JO 6850 states in the paragraph referenced "The PAPI approach path must provide the proper TCH for the most demanding height group that uses the runway.", though the 8260 uses language such as "The glide slope should be located considering final approach obstructions and achieving TCH values associated with the greatest table 2-3 wheel height group applicable to aircraft normally expected to use the runway. The TCH should provide a 30-foot wheel crossing height (WCH)"

One difference is that the second sentence is associated with standard Cat I numbers where the first example is again specifically for VGSI systems without accompanying electronic information.

I'm not sure exactly how you would aim the VGSI at every airport that a HG4 aircraft COULD land at without producing results not IAW the results desired for aircraft that usually use the runway.

8314 - where is this information known?
I would have assumed from the training that crews receive if flying HG4 aircraft.

KC10 FATboy

As someone who has flown several HG4 aircraft, a TCH of 48' doesn't cause me any concern. Perhaps it should? I honestly don't know.

However, in one airplane, the flight manual specified a limitation for a minimum TCH of 46'.

8314ever

I don't think you can mix apples/oranges

I don't think 8620 applies at all (below MDA) - because 18 has no electronic glide slope guidance. I think this boils down to, if an airport wants to serve wide body (HG4) aircraft, it needs to do it w an ILS or enough runway and/or cushion over obstacles to shoot a PAPI OCS over a safer/higher TCH.

As one poster pointed out on PPRN, having a higher TCH does no harm to the smaller aircraft, the little guys will do what they can get away with and land/stop with no problem.

One could always say that the PAPIs are ONLY a visual aid, but if they become mandatory at night for either IAP - it seems the airport really ties its hands and better comply with the one applicable JO.

As far as USMCs question on 'where is this information located?' That brings up my point exactly - IT'S NOT ANYWHERE except this JO and whatever specs the airport works with whoever to design/implement and check.

No note in AFD(IFR Supp)/IAP etc.

Had there been a note somewhere, I don't know that this thread would exist.