« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Approach Classification  (Read 4328 times)

Offline EHM-1570 Bruce

  • Geostationary orbit
  • ******
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 1
Approach Classification
« on: December 14, 2005, 11:53:38 am »
As a point of interest, what classification should be given to a Back Course approach, as it is half ILS and half Visual?.
Logged
Bruce Woodbridge
EHM 1570

Offline EHM-0948 Bruno

  • Intergalactic!!
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,561
  • Karma: 0
Approach Classification
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2005, 03:01:58 pm »
Hi Bruce,

There is no classification for that because it's kind'a tricky to know what approach did you made using only ACARS information ...

Maybe one day ? ;) ...

Regards,
Logged

Offline EHM-1358 Tim

  • Intergalactic!!
  • ********
  • Posts: 1,192
  • Karma: 0
Approach Classification
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2005, 03:36:29 pm »
I'd say ILS because your flying ILS in an IFR flight. Just my opinion.
Logged

Offline EHM-1001 Robert

  • Global Moderator
  • Intergalactic!!
  • **
  • Posts: 3,790
  • Karma: 0
Approach Classification
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2005, 04:33:11 pm »
Well, I always had a vision in my mind, that (final) approach in pilots language is the period when you are aligned with the runway at 2000 ft (on the most airports), and ready for landing. Now if you do this part visual then it is a visual landing, and does not matter how do you navigate until that point. I guess, at least...
Logged

AMD X4-955 3.2GHz / Gigabyte 770T / 4 GB DDR / Gigabyte GTS450 1GB DDR
Samsung 226BW@1680x1050 / WinXP.3 / FS9.1 / FSX.1 / Saitek Cyborg 3DGold

Offline EHM-1358 Tim

  • Intergalactic!!
  • ********
  • Posts: 1,192
  • Karma: 0
Approach Classification
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2005, 05:10:40 pm »
But wouldn't that be the lineing up onto the runway, not the landing part?
Logged

Offline EHM-1001 Robert

  • Global Moderator
  • Intergalactic!!
  • **
  • Posts: 3,790
  • Karma: 0
Approach Classification
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2005, 06:07:29 pm »
Oh no, I meant you ar 7 nm from treshold at 2000 feet and starting a -3 degrees descend. That is the final approach, and it does not matter how you reached there: visual, or with navaids.
Logged

AMD X4-955 3.2GHz / Gigabyte 770T / 4 GB DDR / Gigabyte GTS450 1GB DDR
Samsung 226BW@1680x1050 / WinXP.3 / FS9.1 / FSX.1 / Saitek Cyborg 3DGold

Offline EHM-1570 Bruce

  • Geostationary orbit
  • ******
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: 1
Approach Classification
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2005, 06:26:53 pm »
I think I would go along with classing it as a visual approach.
Logged
Bruce Woodbridge
EHM 1570

EHM-1617 Iain

  • Guest
Approach Classification
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2005, 10:08:16 pm »
Well, I'd be tempted to go with VOR, as there's no glideslope, only a localiser, and that's pretty much what happens in a VOR approach ;D
Logged

EHM-1343 Jonathan

  • Guest
Approach Classification
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2005, 04:35:21 pm »
I'd say Visual like Robert...if you landed without autopilot after say, 7-8nm...then i myself would class that as a visual...
Logged

EHM-1617 Iain

  • Guest
Approach Classification
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2005, 07:37:50 pm »
Woah, it has absolutely nothing to do with the autopilot at all. If you had flown an ILS by hand... well you get my point.

It all depends on the primary final approach aid used:

ILS, obviously go for ILS
VOR, VOR
NDB, NDB
Your eyes, Visual
Backcourse localizer, probably VOR in my view as it is most similar and the descent is done in the same way
Logged

EHM-1343 Jonathan

  • Guest
Approach Classification
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2005, 08:20:16 pm »
i will rephrase that...
If the final approach wis completed with visual reference only...not autoland, ILS or NAV aid (the list goes on) then it should be visual.

I kinda proved myself wrong but i know what i mean:>
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »