KHHR no longer has any approach available at night?!

N1120A

N1120A

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
2,246
Location
AG5B BE33 MYF
Display Name
N1120A
Home Airfield
MYF
A little while ago, both the RNAV 25 and VOR approaches went NA at night. Now, there is a NOTAM published that the LOC 25 is also NA at night. This is ridiculous. Any idea why @aterpster or anyone else with some info?
 
The clue is likely in the note "VGSI and descent angles are not coincident." The FAA has recently made it a priority to clean up approaches in which the visual aids do not match the approach glide slope.

At our airport (KVGC) the glide slope was raised to deal with obstructions recently, and in the process the FAA NOTAMed out the approach at night. It took some wrangling with the FAA to allow approaches at night until we can change the VGSI to match the new glide slope. The VGSI is still required to be operational for night approaches. There were also some obstruction issues to deal with that weren't really obstructions except on outdated map data.
 
I recently noticed that the sole approach to Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is now NA at night. It didn't used to be this way. :(
 
I don’t have any knowledge of this specific case, but the most common reason for a procedure to be NA at night is due to obstacles that penetrate a 20:1 plane extending off the end of the runway. Often, if there is a new survey, it identifies trees that have grown, new antennas or building constructed, etc. If these penetrate that 20:1 surface, then they need to be lit with standard obstruction lights, or the procedure is NA at night.

There are other reasons, like runway lighting or noise abatement, but the 20:1 issue is by far the most common reason.
 
RussR said:
I don’t have any knowledge of this specific case, but the most common reason for a procedure to be NA at night is due to obstacles that penetrate a 20:1 plane extending off the end of the runway. Often, if there is a new survey, it identifies trees that have grown, new antennas or building constructed, etc. If these penetrate that 20:1 surface, then they need to be lit with standard obstruction lights, or the procedure is NA at night.

There are other reasons, like runway lighting or noise abatement, but the 20:1 issue is by far the most common reason.
Click to expand...

And sometimes those obstructions are based on old maps or surveys. We got a whole list of obstructions to clear that no longer exist. It took a whole to clear that up. But you are going to eventually get dinged if the PAPIs don't match the glide slope.
 
chemgeek said:
But you are going to eventually get dinged if the PAPIs don't match the glide slope.
Click to expand...
which my purely objective and analytical sense I understand why period but in reality, as long as the glide slope doesn't have you hitting anything then by the time you can see PAPI/VASI you are visual anyway?!

Seems like the whole bathwater baby thing to just na the approach
 
I emailed IFP and they got back to me. It apparently is an issue with unlit visual surface penetration. Basically obstacles off airport. Sounds like someone at the airport isn't doing their job monitoring these things.

chemgeek said:
And sometimes those obstructions are based on old maps or surveys. We got a whole list of obstructions to clear that no longer exist. It took a whole to clear that up. But you are going to eventually get dinged if the PAPIs don't match the glide slope.
Click to expand...

Unmatching VGSIs usually just mean higher mins, which KHHR has

Tantalum said:
which my purely objective and analytical sense I understand why period but in reality, as long as the glide slope doesn't have you hitting anything then by the time you can see PAPI/VASI you are visual anyway?!

Seems like the whole bathwater baby thing to just na the approach
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Someone found pinecones in their engines after a night landing at Danbury,,CT a few years ago. Since then, the FAA is on a mission to eliminate unlit obstructions.
 
N1120A said:
Unmatching VGSIs usually just mean higher mins, which KHHR has
Click to expand...

I cannot think of any connection between alignment with the VGSI and any effect on either minimum altitude or minimum visibility.

The minimums at HHR are what they are because of multiple 300+ ft MSL towers on final. Add 250 feet to that for the required obstacle clearance, and you get MDAs in the 500's, as are published.
 
RussR said:
I cannot think of any connection between alignment with the VGSI and any effect on either minimum altitude or minimum visibility.

The minimums at HHR are what they are because of multiple 300+ ft MSL towers on final. Add 250 feet to that for the required obstacle clearance, and you get MDAs in the 500's, as are published.
Click to expand...
Huge power lines along the 105 freeway that parallels the runway.
 
N1120A said:
A little while ago, both the RNAV 25 and VOR approaches went NA at night. Now, there is a NOTAM published that the LOC 25 is also NA at night. This is ridiculous. Any idea why @aterpster or anyone else with some info?
Click to expand...

My guess is the same reason the others are. Amendment 12A is due to be published next month. The other 2 are recently Amended, this one last done in 2017. Maybe someone just realized this one should already have had it and just got around to Notaming it
 
luvflyin said:
My guess is the same reason the others are. Amendment 12A is due to be published next month. The other 2 are recently Amended, this one last done in 2017. Maybe someone just realized this one should already have had it and just got around to Notaming it
Click to expand...

It seems to me to be poorly taken, or at least badly handled on the airport's part.
 
luvflyin said:
What did they say the airport did wrong? Would you PM me or post here that email.
Click to expand...

Sure.

"Hi,

The airport has unlit visual surface penetration. They would need to remedy that before the NOTAMS can be cancelled.

Most of the time these restrictions become permanent due to the obstacles being off airport.

You would need to contact the airport to find out if they will be clearing the surfaces."
 
The airport is responsible for clearing the obstructions or getting them equipped with lights. This can include the purchasing of 'avigation easements' from adjoining landowners or the installation of red lights on structures owned by others. There is AIP money available to do so, but that can take a while.
 
luvflyin said:
Not so sure the responsibility lies with the airport. It would be an FAA thing.
Click to expand...
The FAA is not responsible for mitigating obstacles. They do have a responsibility to determine whether a proposed obstacle would impact the operation of an airport. (FAR 77)
 
aterpster said:
The FAA is not responsible for mitigating obstacles. They do have a responsibility to determine whether a proposed obstacle would impact the operation of an airport. (FAR 77)
Click to expand...

Yeah. And Instrument Approaches. I don’t think an obstacle requiring NA at night popped up all of a sudden on 22SEPT. Obstructions requiring NA at night seem to have been there as far back as 05DEC19. See the RNAV(GPS) RWY 25 approach. Further back then that even.
https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp...-HHR-NDBR/CA_HAWTHORNE_RG25_HHR_CORRECTED.pdf
See change reason 14. I think someone just now noticed that they had boo boo’d and didn’t chart NA at night on the LOC 25. Or failed to Notam it last year if the obstructions popped up after 07DEC17. That ain’t the airports fault.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing that the unlit obstruction issue may also be responsible for the elimination of night approaches at Palo Alto. There were a lot of notams for construction cranes in the general vicinity of the final approach course in recent years.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm guessing that the unlit obstruction issue may also be responsible for the elimination of night approaches at Palo Alto. There were a lot of notams for construction cranes in the general vicinity of the final approach course in recent years.
Click to expand...

As I recall it wasn’t for a particular obstruction. It was that an obstruction survey hadn’t been done. Without knowing whether or not there are obstructions that would require NA at night, they gotta just make it so
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. And Instrument Approaches. I don’t think an obstacle requiring NA at night popped up all of a sudden on 22SEPT. Obstructions requiring NA at night seem to have been there as far back as 05DEC19. See the RNAV(GPS) RWY 25 approach. Further back then that even.
https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp...-HHR-NDBR/CA_HAWTHORNE_RG25_HHR_CORRECTED.pdf
See change reason 14. I think someone just now noticed that they had boo boo’d and didn’t chart NA at night on the LOC 25. Or failed to Notam it last year if the obstructions popped up after 07DEC17. That ain’t the airports fault.
Click to expand...
Or, perhaps the standards changed. "Standard" instrument approach procedure. The FAA got burned on visual segment obstacles several years ago.

At the airport next door (KLAX) the Department of Airports has a keen eye for obstacle issues. Hawthorne is probably the norm for a non-airline airport.
 
aterpster said:
Or, perhaps the standards changed. "Standard" instrument approach procedure. The FAA got burned on visual segment obstacles several years ago.

At the airport next door (KLAX) the Department of Airports has a keen eye for obstacle issues. Hawthorne is probably the norm for a non-airline airport.
Click to expand...

If the standards just recently changed and that’s what created the Sept 22 Notam it doesn’t account for the RNAV 25 having had NA at night long ago. Those two Approaches are basically duplicates of each other. An obstruction is an obstruction. There could be some Terping issues that might change some things out on final and maybe the missed approach. But concerning unlit obstructions and the need to have NA at night, I cannot imagine any difference. I’m putting all my money down on they just missed it and recently discovered their error.
 
luvflyin said:
If the standards just recently changed and that’s what created the Sept 22 Notam it doesn’t account for the RNAV 25 having had NA at night long ago. Those two Approaches are basically duplicates of each other. An obstruction is an obstruction. There could be some Terping issues that might change some things out on final and maybe the missed approach. But concerning unlit obstructions and the need to have NA at night, I cannot imagine any difference. I’m putting all my money down on they just missed it and recently discovered their error.
Click to expand...
Could be. It wouldn't be the first time.
 
luvflyin said:
If the standards just recently changed and that’s what created the Sept 22 Notam it doesn’t account for the RNAV 25 having had NA at night long ago. Those two Approaches are basically duplicates of each other. An obstruction is an obstruction. There could be some Terping issues that might change some things out on final and maybe the missed approach. But concerning unlit obstructions and the need to have NA at night, I cannot imagine any difference. I’m putting all my money down on they just missed it and recently discovered their error.
Click to expand...

"Long time" is last year. They kept the LOC for a while, for some reason, available at night. Maybe because it didn't have vertical guidance and could only be flown to MDA.
 
N1120A said:
"Long time" is last year. They kept the LOC for a while, for some reason, available at night. Maybe because it didn't have vertical guidance and could only be flown to MDA.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that would have a bearing on it. The MDA’s on both the LOC and the RNAV are 580-620. The RNAV’s DA’s range from 576-653. I don’t see how any of that would affect the issue of unlighted obstacles at night anyway. I don’t think the ‘keeping’ of the LOC at night was deliberate. I still think it was a boo boo that got discovered a few days ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top