Italian VOR/DME Approach

[G Farris]

Who can explain this approach to me - VOR + DME RWY 14 (LIEE)
http://www.vatita.net/download/planning/files/LIEE_ial.pdf

I flew as a passenger in an Alitalia MD80 the other day, and we apparently
flew this approach. As we made our left turn to final, I could see the PAPI
lights on RWY 14 - all four red obviously.

I'm assuming we're supposed to be visual throughout this procedure turn, but I
don't understand the reason for flying so low. 2100ft at 12DME?

Any ideas? Thanks.

G Faris

[[email protected]]

G Farris wrote:

> Who can explain this approach to me - VOR + DME RWY 14 (LIEE)
> http://www.vatita.net/download/planning/files/LIEE_ial.pdf
>
> I flew as a passenger in an Alitalia MD80 the other day, and we apparently
> flew this approach. As we made our left turn to final, I could see the PAPI
> lights on RWY 14 - all four red obviously.
>
> I'm assuming we're supposed to be visual throughout this procedure turn, but I
> don't understand the reason for flying so low. 2100ft at 12DME?
>
> Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> G Faris

The solid lines are all flight tracks for the appproach that are not restricted to
visual flight. The broken lines are for two different missed approach procedures.

The procedure is for Runway 32. If you landed on 14 you had to circle to the east
with a left turn onto final for 14. The circle-to-land would be visual and can be
done as low as 987 feet above airport elevation. It would not be unusual to be
below the PAPI or VASI during turn to final on a circle-to-land.

[G Farris]

Thanks for the reply.
Are we talking about the LAST page of the pdf document VOR/DME RWY 14?

Nothing I can see on the document indicates that the course reversal is
visual. I'm guessing it might be because we cross the field outbound, and even
though it's a sea-level airport, you don't have to go too far out before you
start getting into terrain issues - plus of course the fact that we are below
the PAPI glideslope.

Though it's not shown on this plate, the 334° course takes us directly over
the NDB located on field at the Decimomannu air force base, 8nm out. Maybe
flying over that field has something to do with why we are so low?

Greg





In article >, says...
>
>
>
>G Farris wrote:
>
>> Who can explain this approach to me - VOR + DME RWY 14 (LIEE)
>> http://www.vatita.net/download/planning/files/LIEE_ial.pdf
>>
>> I flew as a passenger in an Alitalia MD80 the other day, and we apparently
>> flew this approach. As we made our left turn to final, I could see the PAPI
>> lights on RWY 14 - all four red obviously.
>>
>> I'm assuming we're supposed to be visual throughout this procedure turn,
but I
>> don't understand the reason for flying so low. 2100ft at 12DME?
>>
>> Any ideas? Thanks.
>>
>> G Faris
>
>The solid lines are all flight tracks for the appproach that are not
restricted to
>visual flight. The broken lines are for two different missed approach
procedures.
>
>The procedure is for Runway 32. If you landed on 14 you had to circle to the
east
>with a left turn onto final for 14. The circle-to-land would be visual and
can be
>done as low as 987 feet above airport elevation. It would not be unusual to
be
>below the PAPI or VASI during turn to final on a circle-to-land.
>
>

[Dave Butler]

G Farris wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
> Are we talking about the LAST page of the pdf document VOR/DME RWY 14?
>
> Nothing I can see on the document indicates that the course reversal is
> visual. I'm guessing it might be because we cross the field outbound, and even
> though it's a sea-level airport, you don't have to go too far out before you
> start getting into terrain issues - plus of course the fact that we are below
> the PAPI glideslope.
>
> Though it's not shown on this plate, the 334° course takes us directly over
> the NDB located on field at the Decimomannu air force base, 8nm out. Maybe
> flying over that field has something to do with why we are so low?

I'm guessing you're not an instrument pilot? If the approach is for runway 14,
but you're landing on runway 32, it's a "circling" approach. The circling
maneuver is done visually. The term "course reversal" that you used has a
special meaning in instrument operations, and that's not what this is.

Dave

[G Farris]

I'm guessing you didn't look at the plate.
The approach is for runway 14, and we're landing on runway 14.

Greg



In article <1112272724.384310@sj-nntpcache-5>, says...

>I'm guessing you're not an instrument pilot? If the approach is for runway
14,
>but you're landing on runway 32, it's a "circling" approach. The circling
>maneuver is done visually. The term "course reversal" that you used has a
>special meaning in instrument operations, and that's not what this is.
>
>Dave

[[email protected]]

I didn't know there was more than one page.

G Farris wrote:

> Thanks for the reply.
> Are we talking about the LAST page of the pdf document VOR/DME RWY 14?
>
> Nothing I can see on the document indicates that the course reversal is
> visual. I'm guessing it might be because we cross the field outbound, and even
> though it's a sea-level airport, you don't have to go too far out before you
> start getting into terrain issues - plus of course the fact that we are below
> the PAPI glideslope.
>
> Though it's not shown on this plate, the 334° course takes us directly over
> the NDB located on field at the Decimomannu air force base, 8nm out. Maybe
> flying over that field has something to do with why we are so low?
>
> Greg
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> >
> >
> >G Farris wrote:
> >
> >> Who can explain this approach to me - VOR + DME RWY 14 (LIEE)
> >> http://www.vatita.net/download/planning/files/LIEE_ial.pdf
> >>
> >> I flew as a passenger in an Alitalia MD80 the other day, and we apparently
> >> flew this approach. As we made our left turn to final, I could see the PAPI
> >> lights on RWY 14 - all four red obviously.
> >>
> >> I'm assuming we're supposed to be visual throughout this procedure turn,
> but I
> >> don't understand the reason for flying so low. 2100ft at 12DME?
> >>
> >> Any ideas? Thanks.
> >>
> >> G Faris
> >
> >The solid lines are all flight tracks for the appproach that are not
> restricted to
> >visual flight. The broken lines are for two different missed approach
> procedures.
> >
> >The procedure is for Runway 32. If you landed on 14 you had to circle to the
> east
> >with a left turn onto final for 14. The circle-to-land would be visual and
> can be
> >done as low as 987 feet above airport elevation. It would not be unusual to
> be
> >below the PAPI or VASI during turn to final on a circle-to-land.
> >
> >

[[email protected]]

That is a tear-drop procedure turn, which can all be done in IMC. Then, some
airlines "dive and drive" for the MDA, thus getting below the PAPI, then "driving"
towards the runway at MDA to intercept the PAPI slope.

[G Farris]

Sorry about the confusion. I probably should have stated at the outset that it
was on the last page!!

What perplexes me is not that the airliner did his procedure turn below the
VGSI, but that it's actually published that way.

It's a wierd looking plate. the little X's look like FAF's, except that you
encounter three of them on one approach. Then, the procedure turn is
executed outside the standard 10nm radius, and at a published altitude below
the VGSI.

I can't think of why they would do it this way, unless it's related to the
military base and their traffic patterns.

Greg




In article >, says...
>
>That is a tear-drop procedure turn, which can all be done in IMC. Then, some
>airlines "dive and drive" for the MDA, thus getting below the PAPI, then
"driving"
>towards the runway at MDA to intercept the PAPI slope.
>
>
>

[Dave Butler]

G Farris wrote:
> I'm guessing you didn't look at the plate.

You caught me.

[[email protected]]

G Farris wrote:

> Sorry about the confusion. I probably should have stated at the outset that it
> was on the last page!!
>
> What perplexes me is not that the airliner did his procedure turn below the
> VGSI, but that it's actually published that way.
>
> It's a wierd looking plate. the little X's look like FAF's, except that you
> encounter three of them on one approach. Then, the procedure turn is
> executed outside the standard 10nm radius, and at a published altitude below
> the VGSI.
>
> I can't think of why they would do it this way, unless it's related to the
> military base and their traffic patterns.

ICAO criteria splits approach categories for segments of an approach, unlike
TERPs. That is why the teardrop is tighter for A/B than C/D.

The outer X is the turn limit for C/D. The next X inbound is the turn limit for
A/B and it is also the intermediate fix where all categories can leave 2100 for
1400. The X at 1400 is the FAF and you will note that is where the descent table
begins for 260 feet per mile descent gradient.

But, that gradient has you crossing the threshold (1 CAG DME) at 91 feet, which is
about 40-50 feet higher than what the VGSI is likely sited for. It is all well
below a 3-degree slope, however.

As far as the outer limits of a procedure turn being below the VGSI, what is
unusual about that? I don't know about Italy but a VGSI in this country is survey
for obstacles only to 4 miles (VASI) or 3.5 miles (PAPI).

[G Farris]

Thanks for your replies, which are interesting and informed as always.

Greg


In article >, says...
>
>
>
>G Farris wrote:
>
>> Sorry about the confusion. I probably should have stated at the outset that
it
>> was on the last page!!
>>
>> What perplexes me is not that the airliner did his procedure turn below the
>> VGSI, but that it's actually published that way.
>>
>> It's a wierd looking plate. the little X's look like FAF's, except that you
>> encounter three of them on one approach. Then, the procedure turn is
>> executed outside the standard 10nm radius, and at a published altitude
below
>> the VGSI.
>>
>> I can't think of why they would do it this way, unless it's related to the
>> military base and their traffic patterns.
>
>ICAO criteria splits approach categories for segments of an approach, unlike
>TERPs. That is why the teardrop is tighter for A/B than C/D.
>
>The outer X is the turn limit for C/D. The next X inbound is the turn limit
for
>A/B and it is also the intermediate fix where all categories can leave 2100
for
>1400. The X at 1400 is the FAF and you will note that is where the descent
table
>begins for 260 feet per mile descent gradient.
>
>But, that gradient has you crossing the threshold (1 CAG DME) at 91 feet,
which is
>about 40-50 feet higher than what the VGSI is likely sited for. It is all
well
>below a 3-degree slope, however.
>
>As far as the outer limits of a procedure turn being below the VGSI, what is
>unusual about that? I don't know about Italy but a VGSI in this country is
survey
>for obstacles only to 4 miles (VASI) or 3.5 miles (PAPI).
>

[Chris]

>
> ICAO criteria splits approach categories for segments of an approach,
> unlike
> TERPs. That is why the teardrop is tighter for A/B than C/D.
>
> The outer X is the turn limit for C/D. The next X inbound is the turn
> limit for
> A/B and it is also the intermediate fix where all categories can leave
> 2100 for
> 1400. The X at 1400 is the FAF and you will note that is where the
> descent table
> begins for 260 feet per mile descent gradient.
>
> But, that gradient has you crossing the threshold (1 CAG DME) at 91 feet,
> which is
> about 40-50 feet higher than what the VGSI is likely sited for. It is all
> well
> below a 3-degree slope, however.
>
> As far as the outer limits of a procedure turn being below the VGSI, what
> is
> unusual about that? I don't know about Italy but a VGSI in this country
> is survey
> for obstacles only to 4 miles (VASI) or 3.5 miles (PAPI).
>

also bear in mind that the process for establishing the glideslope when on
an ILS approach is to join from beneath the glideslope and then track the
glideslope down to DA.

Its the same principle.