Phuket ILS runway 27
#1
Posted 31 May 2005 - 08:19 PM
Has anyone tried landing at Phuket airport ILS runway 27??
Can someone please confirm that it is inaccurate and the plane always land 1-2 degress off to the right.
This must be a Microsoft bug...........
#2
Posted 01 June 2005 - 12:41 AM
slick, on May 31 2005, 09:19 PM, said:
Has anyone tried landing at Phuket airport ILS runway 27??
Can someone please confirm that it is inaccurate and the plane always land 1-2 degress off to the right.
This must be a Microsoft bug...........
Runway DESIGNATORS = 09/27
Magnetic Variation for Phuket = -0.9
Runway True Headings = 84.9/264.9
Runway Magnetic Headings = 85.5/265.5
Runway designations are the first two digits of the three-digit magnetic heading, to the nearest whole number. There are no runway designators 85.5 or 265.5 (FS9 or real-world) ... they are rounded up to 09 and 27 (respectively). ATC willl clear you to land "Rwy 09" or "Rwy 27"; however, as an aviator, you are supposed to check your charts (map display mode, point-click on the runway and read the data for the runway you intend to land on) when flight planning to learn that Rwy 27 was not poured on a physical alignment of 090/270. A lot of factors go into pouring concrete for a runway, particularly soil type, terrain features, environmental concerns, water table, etc. Phuket was poured on magnetic headings 85.5/265.5, which ATC lists as 09/27. Also, since the mag var changes year-to-year, the original runway could very well have been poured 090/270, but the variance over the years has altered the heading to 85.5/265.5.
Just another reason to align via instruments, but once you have the runway visual, fly the approach manually to correct for heading.
#3
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:18 AM
sarge, on Jun 1 2005, 12:41 AM, said:
slick, on May 31 2005, 09:19 PM, said:
Has anyone tried landing at Phuket airport ILS runway 27??
Can someone please confirm that it is inaccurate and the plane always land 1-2 degress off to the right.
This must be a Microsoft bug...........
Runway DESIGNATORS = 09/27
Magnetic Variation for Phuket = -0.9
Runway True Headings = 84.9/264.9
Runway Magnetic Headings = 85.5/265.5
Runway designations are the first two digits of the three-digit magnetic heading, to the nearest whole number. There are no runway designators 85.5 or 265.5 (FS9 or real-world) ... they are rounded up to 09 and 27 (respectively). ATC willl clear you to land "Rwy 09" or "Rwy 27"; however, as an aviator, you are supposed to check your charts (map display mode, point-click on the runway and read the data for the runway you intend to land on) when flight planning to learn that Rwy 27 was not poured on a physical alignment of 090/270. A lot of factors go into pouring concrete for a runway, particularly soil type, terrain features, environmental concerns, water table, etc. Phuket was poured on magnetic headings 85.5/265.5, which ATC lists as 09/27. Also, since the mag var changes year-to-year, the original runway could very well have been poured 090/270, but the variance over the years has altered the heading to 85.5/265.5.
Just another reason to align via instruments, but once you have the runway visual, fly the approach manually to correct for heading.
Very well said ... also notice on the instrument approach plates (if you have them/know how to read them) many runways such as "27" have inbound headings of 272, 271, 273, etc..a few degrees can make a big difference when shooting an instrument approach.
#4
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:24 AM
#5
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:31 AM
slick, on May 31 2005, 11:24 PM, said:
#6
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:37 AM
#7
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:54 AM
That way you are not surprised in the middle of "your best ILS approach ever" in poor weather (cause the needles are rock steady and dead on in the middle) suddenly you are staring at the ground or some trees.
Ruahrc
#8
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:54 AM
dolbinau, on Jun 1 2005, 02:37 AM, said:
#9
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:55 AM
dolbinau, on May 31 2005, 11:37 PM, said:
(Does anyone have a good "shrugging shoulders" type smiley?)
#10
Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:58 PM
#11
Posted 01 June 2005 - 04:10 PM
sweetfracture3, on Jun 1 2005, 02:58 PM, said:
Budget cut-backs, and realignment of the localizer/glideslope beams due to annual changes in the mag var are put on hold (not cheap to do). Since ATC requires visual acquisition of the runway prior to landing and requires the pilot to state AFFIRMATIVELY that he has the airport in sight, it's not a "safety of flight" issue. That's how airport management bean-counters justify not spending money for the realignment.