Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pilot Training' started by WannFly, Aug 27, 2020.
What say POA?
Disregard if posted before and merge the thread
I’d have to hear more about it, but the report makes it sound like an unacceptable risk. If there were measures put into place to monitor or to identify when pilots we’re getting faulty guidance, it may have reduced the risk to an acceptable level. Hard to tell from this. I definitely understand the pilots frustration.
It’s never been an issue for me.
I've certainly never flown it but the ILS Y RWY 22R at KDTW (Detroit) does permit simultaneous approaches to parallel runways. If the FAA can't fix the issue with taxiing planes blocking the ILS signal in the short term, they could at least NOTAM out the simultaneous approaches allowance. The Pilots would probably feel a lot better knowing that they aren't going to sideswipe another plane if they overshoot the localizer.
Not just Simultaneous Approaches, but Simultaneous(Close). 22R and 22L are only 3000 ft apart and special ‘close’ rules are needed. The Y and the Z Aproaches use different Localizers, I-BZB and I-JKI. The Y has final approach course 213 degrees and Z is 216. It would follow logic that the Y approach is the one that would allow Simultaneous(Close) with 22l. But it seems to have have more problems with the ILS Critical area which makes sense given I-BZB’s location. This is in the PRM APPROACH AAUP.(if someone can post the thing here, please do. I F it up every time I try to do it.)
Exit the runway as soon as practical; whenever possible, do not stop on taxiway A
25 years ago they had someone specially assigned to monitor and maintain spacing for simultaneous approaches (I’ve seen it with my own eyes in the TRACON office). Difference is then is that (IIRC) they only had three instead of four parallel main runways and they didn’t have to worry about ILS interference. I’m blown away why they just won’t move the ILS antennae.
They have 2 ILS antennae for 22R. The real issue is, by using the 22R Y approach, they can run a higher arrival rate per hour, without having to run the PRM approaches. There's nothing wrong with the ILS Z 22R.
I've never seen any issue with the ILS Y 22R, for what it's worth (well, one that isn't avionics in the plane I fly induced).
I'm just a weekend warrior and know nothing about this but why don't they use the RNAV W approach? It looks like it has minimums of 400' compared to 300'. That should work in most cases.
Because they have to use the ILS. My ancient Mooney has better nav gear than any of those commercial demon tubes.