Originally Posted by mmedford
I'm confused... you can't see an ILS (I mean you can see the equipment, but generally it's a small box). Approach lighting is totally separate/irrelevant from what kind of instrument approaches there are to the runway.
Also, if an approach has a glideslope, it's got a localizer. There is no such thing as a glideslope only approach.
I don't know what having to see the actual antennas has to do with anything. The reason you probably don't see the localizer antennas is because they are located towards the far end (departure end) of the runway. This is so that localizer course guidance doesn't become so sensitive as you approach the threshold that it becomes impossible to stay within course limits (generally one dot). If they were located at the approach end, the approach would be a Localizer Backcourse, and would be a non-precision approach (i.e. no glideslope guidance). A lot of airports have these (although they are starting to be phased out with the advent of advanced GPS approaches). They are totally separate approaches and have to be TERPS a certain way by the FAA. That's another subject though....
As far as what approach lighting the airfield has... if you reference my post a few pages ago, I posted a link to outdated Jepp charts (on which I imagine approach lighting hasn't changed) which show the approach lighting for the runway you're shooting the approach to. The charts show both SALS and PAPIs (or VASIs I forget) for both ends of the runway. With ceiling and vis WELL above mins (as in this case), approach lighting would have been a "nice to have" thing for the crew, but definitely not a necessity. PAPIs would be a lot more important because centerline guidance is easy to visually acquire without approach lighting, but vertical guidance is much more difficult without PAPIs/VASIs, especially at night in the rain.
Bookmarks