Hubbry Logo
Final approachFinal approachMain
Open search
Final approach
Community hub
Final approach
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Final approach
Final approach
Final approach
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Final approach at Toncontin Airport

In aeronautics, the final approach (also called the final leg and final approach leg[1]) is the last leg in an aircraft's approach to landing, when the aircraft is lined up with the runway and descending for landing.[2] In aviation radio terminology, it is often shortened to "final". The last section of the final approach is sometimes referred to as short final.

In a standard airport landing pattern, which is usually used under visual meteorological conditions (VMC), aircraft turns from base leg to final within one-half to two miles of the airport. For instrument approaches, as well as approaches into a controlled airfield under visual flight rules (VFR), often a "straight-in" final approach is used, where all the other legs are dispensed within. Straight-in approaches are discouraged at non-towered airports in the United States.[3]

Approach slope

[edit]

An approach slope is the path that an aircraft follows on its final approach to land on a runway. It is ideally a gentle downward slope. A commonly used approach slope is 3° from the horizontal. However, some airports have a steeper approach slope because of topography, buildings, or other considerations. London City Airport, for example, has a 5.5° approach slope; only aircraft that can maintain such an approach slope are allowed to use the airport.[4] In the United Kingdom, any approach of 4.5° or greater is defined as steep and requires special approval.[5] Steeper approaches require a longer landing distance, which reduces runway throughput at busy airports, and requires longer taxi distances. Airports such as Heathrow and London Luton are trialling slightly steeper approaches (3.2°) to reduce noise, by keeping the aircraft higher for longer and reducing engine power required during descent.[6][7]

United States TERPS (Terminal Instrument Procedures) specifies maximum glidepath angles/vertical descent angles for each aircraft approach category.[8]

A composite image of an Alliance Airlines Fokker 70 on final approach at Christmas Island Airport, illustrating the approach slope to the runway

The term glide slope is sometimes used to mean approach slope, although in precise usage the glide slope is the vertical guidance element of the instrument landing system.[2]

Final approach fix (FAF) and final approach point (FAP)

[edit]
VOR Approach to Runway 10 at Alicante–Elche Miguel Hernández Airport. Showing the FAF for this non-precision approach.
ILS Approach to Runway 10 at Alicante–Elche Miguel Hernández Airport. Showing the FAP for this precision approach.

ICAO operating procures describe the final approach segment as being the segment beginning at the final approach fix/point (FAF/FAP) and ending at the missed approach point (MAPt).[9] The FAF/FAP is generally either a co-located navigational aid beacon (for example a non-directional beacon) or known distance to a beacon (typically located at the aerodrome), which would identify the point for final approach to be commenced by the flying crew.[10][11] The final approach point (FAP) is an equivalent point for a precision approach, where intermediate approach segment intercepts the glideslope of an instrument landing system.[12]

Under ICAO, The FAF and FAP are two different concepts, representing potentially two different altitude-distance points from the MAPt for different approaches to the same runway. However, the FAF and FAP share the same definition as being the point at which the final approach segment is commenced.[13] For example, the FAF for the VOR+DME approach to Runway 10 at Alicante Airport is at 3600 feet and 9.5nm from the Alicante VOR/DME ("ATE") - whereas the FAP for the ILS approach to Runway 10 at the same airport is at 3300 feet and 9.5nm from the ILS/DME.[14]

Pragmatically, in an aviation world becoming less reliant on traditional navigational aid beacons, the FAF and FAP have come to be known as the same thing - accordingly, approach plates tend to mark the FAF/FAP with same symbol, typically with a cross symbol such as Maltese cross or cross potent.

For example, in the United States, the final approach fix is marked on a NACO IAP by a lightning bolt symbol and on a Jeppesen terminal chart by the end of the glide slope path symbol. It is the point in space where the final approach segment begins on an instrument approach. The final approach point is a point on a non-precision approach and is marked by a maltese cross symbol. In the United States, where the approach navigation aid is on the field and there is no symbol depicted, the final approach point is "where the aircraft is established inbound on the final approach course from the procedure turn and where the final approach descent may be commenced".[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Final approach

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , the final approach is the concluding phase of an aircraft's landing procedure, consisting of a straight flight path aligned with the centerline from the base leg in (VFR) operations or from the final approach fix (FAF) in (IFR) procedures, culminating in or a if necessary. This segment demands precise pilot control to maintain the aircraft's descent rate, , and heading, typically at a stabilized glide path of around 3 degrees for most commercial operations, while accounting for factors such as , crosswinds, and terrain clearance. The final approach course is defined as the bearing, radial, or track leading directly to the or its extended centerline, without regard to distance from the threshold. Under IFR, the final approach segment begins at the FAF—a designated point on the intermediate approach track where descent to landing altitudes commences—and extends to the runway, airport, or missed approach point, during which alignment and descent for landing are accomplished in accordance with published minima. This phase is protected by obstacle clearance surfaces to ensure safe navigation, with air traffic control (ATC) often vectoring aircraft to intercept the final approach course at an approach gate, an imaginary point aligned with the runway. Pilots must configure the aircraft for landing—extending flaps, landing gear, and reducing power—while monitoring instruments like the localizer and glideslope on precision approaches such as the instrument landing system (ILS). In VFR conditions, the final approach follows the base leg turn, emphasizing visual cues from the runway environment to maintain alignment without reliance on navigation aids. The final approach is a high-risk phase, accounting for a significant portion of approach-and-landing accidents due to challenges like unstable approaches, runway incursions, or ; thus, stabilized approach criteria—requiring the aircraft to be on the correct flight path, speed, and configuration by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in IFR or 500 feet in VFR—are mandatory at many airports to mitigate these hazards. If stabilization cannot be achieved, pilots are required to execute a , initiating a procedure to climb and reposition for another attempt. These procedures are standardized by authorities like the (FAA) and the (ICAO) to ensure global interoperability and safety.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition

In , the final approach refers to the segment of an 's descent to in which the is aligned with the centerline and descending at a stabilized rate toward the zone. This phase typically spans the last 1 to 5 nautical miles before , varying by approach type and category, and focuses on maintaining a straight flight path along the extended centerline from the completion of the base-to-final turn or final approach fix. The term "final" serves as shorthand in pilot communications, particularly in radio phraseology, where pilots announce "turning final" to indicate the initiation of this leg from the base leg in a standard traffic pattern. This distinguishes the final approach from preceding phases, such as the downwind leg (parallel to the runway at pattern altitude), crosswind leg (perpendicular turn after downwind), or base leg (perpendicular to the runway leading to final). As a critical component of the sequence, the final approach integrates into both (VFR) traffic patterns at uncontrolled airports and instrument approach procedures (IAP) under (IFR), where pilots prioritize alignment, progressive airspeed reduction to approach speed, and aircraft configuration adjustments like deploying flaps and lowering the to prepare for . This phase ensures a controlled transition from en route or pattern flight to , emphasizing stability to avoid unstabilized approaches that could necessitate a .

Historical Development

The origins of final approach practices trace back to the early days of during and the subsequent era of the 1910s and 1920s, when pilots relied on informal visual alignment for landing in rudimentary fields or airstrips without standardized procedures. In these periods, emphasized flights where descent and alignment were guided solely by pilot observation, while post-war barnstormers performed stunt landings in agricultural areas, marking the first widespread activities but lacking any formal navigation aids. Following , final approach concepts were formalized through the development of instrument landing systems (ILS) in the 1940s, transitioning from purely visual methods to radio-based precision guidance. The ILS, first tested in 1929 and achieving its inaugural scheduled passenger landing in 1938, saw operational deployment by the Civil Aeronautics Administration at six U.S. locations in 1941, with nine systems active by 1945. The 1944 Convention established the (ICAO) framework, which by 1947 standardized global procedures for communications, navigation, and approach systems, including early ILS adoption to enhance safety in adverse weather. This era also introduced the concept of the final approach fix (FAF) as a defined point in mid-20th-century instrument procedures to initiate the final descent segment. Key milestones in the 1950s included the rollout of (VOR) stations starting in 1946, enabling non-precision approaches that provided lateral guidance without vertical precision, with over 400 stations defining 45,000 miles of airways by 1953. Precision capabilities advanced in the 1970s with the development of ILS Category III systems for low-visibility operations, as evidenced by a 1971 U.S. contract to for Category III ILS prototypes supporting landings with decision heights as low as 100 feet and runway visual ranges down to 700 feet. Technological shifts toward greater instrument reliance continued with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) approval of GPS-based (RNAV) approaches in 1994, allowing satellite-guided precision without ground-based infrastructure and expanding access to thousands of airports. In recent decades, noise abatement efforts have incorporated steeper approach slopes, such as Heathrow Airport's trials of 3.2-degree RNAV paths starting in 2015, which reduce ground noise exposure by positioning aircraft higher over communities during descent compared to the standard 3-degree glide path.

Key Components

Approach Slope

The approach slope, also known as the glideslope, defines the vertical descent path during the final approach phase in , ensuring a controlled and safe trajectory toward the . The standard glideslope angle is 3 degrees, which corresponds to a descent rate of approximately 318 feet per , derived from the trigonometric relationship where the of the angle equals the vertical descent divided by the horizontal distance (tan(3°) ≈ 0.0524, and 1 ≈ 6076 feet). This angle provides a stable descent profile suitable for most commercial , balancing energy management, visibility, and requirements. Variations in approach slope occur to accommodate site-specific constraints, with steeper angles employed for terrain clearance and shallower or adjusted angles for operational optimizations. For instance, London City Airport utilizes a 5.5-degree glideslope to navigate surrounding urban obstacles and high-rise buildings, requiring specialized aircraft certification and pilot training due to the increased descent rates. In contrast, noise abatement initiatives, such as the 3.2-degree approaches at Heathrow Airport (implemented since 2021), involve slightly steeper profiles to keep aircraft higher over populated areas longer, reducing ground noise exposure by positioning the descent path farther from communities. Key factors influencing these variations include surrounding obstacles and terrain, runway length (shorter runways may necessitate steeper angles for clearance), environmental noise considerations, and aircraft type (e.g., regional jets versus wide-body airliners, with limitations on maximum certified angles). The approach slope is measured and monitored primarily through the glideslope component of the (ILS), which transmits a radio signal from ground antennas to the aircraft's receiver, displaying vertical deviation on instruments such as the attitude director indicator or . Pilots maintain the slope by adjusting power and pitch, targeting vertical speeds of 700-800 feet per minute for typical on a 3-degree path at approach groundspeeds of 140-160 knots. This monitoring ensures adherence to the geometric path, with deviations prompting corrective actions to avoid unstable approaches.

Final Approach Fix (FAF) and Final Approach Point (FAP)

The Final Approach Fix (FAF) serves as the designated that marks the commencement of the final approach segment in non-precision instrument approaches, such as those utilizing VOR or RNAV . It is positioned on the final approach track at a published altitude from which the initiates a stabilized descent toward the minimum descent altitude (MDA). This fix ensures obstacle clearance while allowing pilots to configure the for landing without vertical guidance from the system. In contrast, the Final Approach Point (FAP) applies to precision approaches, including ILS procedures, where it represents the point at which the intermediate approach altitude intersects the nominal glideslope. The FAP identifies the start of the final approach segment, enabling the aircraft to capture and follow the glideslope for a guided descent to the decision altitude (DA). This distinction accommodates the provision of vertical guidance inherent in precision systems. Upon crossing the FAF or FAP, pilots must maintain a constant descent rate aligned with the final approach track, initiating the approach slope while adhering to stabilized criteria. ICAO standards prohibit further course alterations in this segment to preserve obstacle clearance and procedural integrity, ensuring a straight-in path to the runway threshold. Typical distances from the FAF or FAP to the threshold range from 3 to 10 nautical miles, depending on and procedure design. For instance, at Alicante-Elche Airport (LEAL), the VOR/DME approach to 10 designates the FAF at 6.5 DME from the ALT VOR at an altitude of 3,160 feet, approximately 6.5 nautical miles from the threshold. Similarly, the ILS approach to the same positions the FAP at 6.0 DME along the localizer course, about 6.0 nautical miles from the threshold, where glideslope intercept occurs. These parameters reflect adjustments for local and profiles, with altitudes scaled relative to airport of 142 feet.

Approach Threshold and Landing Zone

The approach threshold marks the beginning of the surface designated for safe operations, identified by a series of longitudinal white stripes and threshold lights that delineate the start of the usable landing area. These markings, typically eight stripes symmetrically placed about the centerline for wider runways, ensure pilots can visually align with the runway end during final descent. Threshold lights, consisting of green fixtures embedded in the , provide nighttime and low-visibility guidance to this point. In cases where obstacles or other constraints encroach on the runway approach area, a may be established, shifting the threshold marking away from the physical end to maintain safe clearance. This displacement reduces the available distance but allows the area behind the threshold for , takeoff, or rollout from the opposite direction; it is visually indicated by a white threshold bar, longitudinal white stripes, and arrows pointing toward the displaced position. For instance, Runway 17 at Albuquerque features a displaced threshold to accommodate obstacles. The displaced threshold legally defines the start of the usable for , with displacements varying by airport but often reaching 1,000 feet or more to ensure obstacle clearance. The encompasses the initial portion of the following the threshold, optimized for and deceleration. Aiming point markings, consisting of two rectangular white stripes on each side of the centerline approximately 1,000 feet from the threshold on precision , serve as the pilot's visual target to initiate the maneuver. The zone, defined as the first 3,000 feet of or the first third of the total length (whichever is less), is further marked by pairs of white rectangular bars spaced in 500-foot increments to provide distance cues during rollout. During the , the transitions from a descent path to a level attitude just above the , aiming for initial contact within this zone to minimize rollout distance; rollout then involves applying and spoilers for deceleration, with the full zone available for stopping under normal conditions. In a stabilized approach descending from the final approach fix, the aircraft typically crosses the threshold at 50 feet above ground level to align with certified landing performance data. For short-field operations, pilots use a steeper descent while crossing the threshold at the standard 50 feet above ground level to achieve touchdown closer to the aiming point and shorten landing distance on limited runways. On contaminated runways, while the standard 50-foot crossing height applies, a firm touchdown within the aiming point vicinity is emphasized to maintain directional control and reduce hydroplaning risks during rollout.

Types of Approaches

Visual Final Approach

A visual final approach under (VFR) requires clear weather conditions to ensure pilots can maintain continuous visual contact with the and surrounding traffic. According to (FAA) guidelines, suitable conditions include a ceiling of at least 1,000 feet above the airport and visibility of 3 statute miles or greater, allowing safe see-and-avoid operations without reliance on instrument aids. Pilots must have the environment clearly in sight before turning onto the final approach leg, typically ensuring alignment and visual reference from approximately 1 out to monitor descent and avoid obstacles. The procedures for a VFR visual final approach emphasize standard traffic pattern integration and aircraft configuration for stability. At uncontrolled airports, the preferred entry involves approaching at a 45-degree angle to the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, followed by turns to base and then final, while announcing position intentions on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) to coordinate with other aircraft. On final, pilots configure the aircraft with full flaps extended and maintain an approach speed of approximately 1.3 times the stall speed in landing configuration (V_S0), enabling a controlled descent without electronic navigation guidance. This visual method relies solely on pilot judgment for alignment and slope, often targeting a nominal 3-degree glide path observed through runway markings or terrain cues. Visual final approaches are prevalent in general aviation and routine VFR operations, particularly at uncontrolled fields where pilots self-coordinate landings. They support efficient traffic flow in low-density environments, such as small regional airports, and permit straight-in approaches when aligned with the runway and no conflicting traffic exists, as commonly practiced during events like the EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh.

Instrument Final Approach

Instrument final approaches rely on electronic navigation aids to provide guidance during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), enabling pilots to align with the runway and descend safely without visual references. These approaches are divided into precision and non-precision types, each utilizing specific ground-based or satellite systems for lateral and, in some cases, vertical guidance. The final approach segment typically commences at the Final Approach Fix (FAF) for both non-precision and precision procedures; for non-precision approaches, it is the point from which descent to the minimum descent altitude (MDA) begins, and for precision approaches such as ILS, it is the glideslope intercept point, where aircraft must be established on course before initiating descent. The primary precision system is the (ILS), which delivers both lateral and vertical guidance to the runway threshold. The localizer component provides lateral course alignment via VHF signals (108.10–111.95 MHz), projecting a beam with a 700-foot width at the threshold, while the glideslope offers vertical path information using UHF signals (329.15–335.00 MHz) at a typical 3-degree angle. Precision profiles under ILS involve a constant descent from the FAP along the glideslope, maintaining a stabilized rate typically below 1,000 feet per minute, with decision altitude (DA) or decision height (DH) as the point for visual confirmation or initiation. Non-precision approaches, such as those using (VOR) or (RNAV), provide lateral guidance only, without electronic vertical path information. VOR systems transmit radial signals for course alignment, while RNAV leverages GPS or other databases for waypoint-based ; both often include step-down fixes within the final segment to ensure obstacle clearance before reaching the minimum descent altitude (MDA). in these profiles begins at the FAF, following a constant-angle or stabilized path to the MDA, where pilots must acquire visual references or execute a at the missed approach point (MAP). Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches, often GPS-based, enhance non-precision or precision-like operations with onboard monitoring and alerting to maintain specified accuracy, such as 0.3 nautical miles on the final segment. These enable curved paths or straight-in descents with vertical guidance via (WAAS), supporting profiles similar to ILS but with greater flexibility in airspace-constrained areas. ILS approaches are categorized by capability for low-visibility operations, with increasing automation and ground facilities required for lower minima. Category I (Cat I) supports a DH of 200 feet and (RVR) of 2,400 feet; Cat II requires a DH of and RVR of 1,200 feet; Cat IIIA allows no DH or less than with RVR of 700 feet, while Cat IIIB extends to RVR as low as 150 feet. Advanced aircraft equipped for can complete landings automatically in Cat II and III conditions, relying on and fail-operational systems for and rollout without pilot intervention.

Procedures and Operations

Standard Descent and Alignment Procedures

During the final approach phase, pilots establish and maintain alignment with the centerline to ensure a safe . For visual approaches, this involves visually lining up the aircraft's longitudinal axis with the using the aiming point as a reference, while instrument approaches rely on navigation aids such as the localizer needle or heading bug to track the final approach course within acceptable tolerances, typically ±5 degrees of the heading. corrections are applied using either the crab method, where the aircraft's heading is adjusted into the wind to counteract drift while maintaining track, or the sideslip (wing-low) method, involving a into the wind with opposite to align the with the without crabbing. Descent management begins with configuring the for and adjusting power and pitch to achieve a stabilized path. Pilots reduce power to establish a target approach , often Vref + 5 knots for commercial jets to account for gusts and provide a margin above the reference speed (1.3 times the stall speed in configuration), ensuring the remains controllable. Vertical speed is controlled to maintain the glideslope, typically a 3° angle, with rates of 500–1,000 feet per minute above 300 feet above ground level (AGL), using power increases to shallow the descent if too low or reductions to steepen it if too high, while monitoring the aiming point to prevent deviations. Prior to crossing the final approach fix or point, pilots complete essential checklist items to verify aircraft configuration. The "GUMPS" checklist—covering gas ( selector), undercarriage (), mixture (leaned for landing), prop (full fine pitch), and switches (e.g., lights and pumps)—is performed to mitigate risks of configuration errors. Throughout the descent, standardized callouts per standard operating procedures (SOPs) monitor stability, such as "1,000 feet, stable" in (IMC) or "500 feet, stable" in (VMC), confirming adherence to criteria like constant , descent rate, and track before proceeding. These procedures apply generally to both visual and instrument final approaches, with adaptations for specific guidance.

Stabilized Approach Criteria

A stabilized approach requires the aircraft to meet specific performance parameters to ensure controllability and safety during the final descent to . According to the (FAA) in (AC) 120-108A, these criteria must be achieved and maintained by 1,000 feet above touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) in (IMC) or by 500 feet above TDZE in (VMC), with the aircraft configured for landing, maintaining a constant descent rate and flight path angle (FPA). For non-precision approaches, stabilization is similarly required by 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL), though monitoring for stability often begins higher, around 3,000 feet at the final approach fix (FAF) to support continuous descent final approach (CDFA) techniques. Key parameters include the being on the published glide path or vertical descent (VDA) profile with no excessive deviations, such as more than one full-scale deflection on the glideslope indicator for precision approaches or significant lateral/vertical offsets for non-precision ones. must be within -5 to +10 knots of the target reference speed (VREF or VAPP), and the sink rate should not exceed 1,000 feet per minute (fpm), typically around 600–700 fpm for a standard 3° glide path in jet . The (ICAO), through guidance in Document 8168 and aligned industry standards from the (IATA), endorses comparable thresholds: stabilization by 1,000 feet above airport level (AAL) in IMC or 500 feet AAL in VMC, with speed tolerances generally within +5/-0 knots of target and position deviations limited to small corrections only. Pilots must conduct continuous monitoring of these parameters throughout the approach, with immediate corrective actions for deviations such as being high or low on the glideslope or excessive bank angles beyond 5–8 degrees. If criteria cannot be met or maintained, or if visual references are inadequate, a go-around is mandatory; this is initiated with a standard crew call of "go around, flaps up, positive rate," followed by advancing thrust levers to takeoff/go-around (TOGA) settings while maintaining pitch for a positive climb. ICAO emphasizes that go-arounds should occur without hesitation if instability persists below the stabilization gate, prioritizing safety over continuation. These criteria apply uniformly to both precision and non-precision approaches, though non-precision procedures rely on computed VDAs (optimum 3.0°) to achieve the required stability from the FAF onward.

Safety and Regulations

Common Hazards and Mitigation

During the final approach phase, pilots face several significant hazards that can lead to accidents if not properly managed. One primary risk is windshear, particularly microbursts, which involve sudden downdrafts causing rapid sink rates and loss of airspeed, potentially resulting in (CFIT) or runway excursions. Another common threat is runway incursions, where unauthorized aircraft, vehicles, or personnel enter the protected runway area while an approaching aircraft is low and committed to landing, increasing collision risks. Unstable approaches, characterized by deviations in speed, descent rate, or alignment, often contribute to hard landings, long landings, or CFIT, as pilots may attempt corrections too late in the low-altitude environment. To mitigate windshear encounters, pilots are trained to execute an escape maneuver immediately upon recognition, which involves applying takeoff/go-around (TOGA) thrust and pitching the nose to an initial attitude of 15 degrees to maximize climb performance and exit the shear zone. For runway incursions and potential mid-air conflicts during final approach, systems like the (TCAS) provide resolution advisories to direct evasive maneuvers, while the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) issues terrain and obstacle alerts to prevent CFIT. (CRM) practices emphasize cross-checks between pilots, including verbal confirmations of approach parameters and mutual monitoring, to detect and correct deviations early. According to Boeing's Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents (2004-2013), final approach accounted for approximately 22 percent (16 of 72) of fatal accidents within the broader approach-and-landing phase. More recent data from 2015-2024 reports no fatal accidents during final approach, reflecting safety improvements. A key policy in modern operations is the "stabilized or " directive, which requires a if the approach is not stabilized by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in (IMC) or by 500 feet in (VMC), significantly reducing associated risks.

International Standards and Variations

The (ICAO) establishes global standards for final approach procedures through Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations (, Doc 8168), which outlines criteria for instrument approach segments including the final approach fix (FAF) typically positioned 5-10 nautical miles (nm) from the runway threshold to facilitate alignment and descent. These procedures recommend a nominal glideslope of 3° for precision approaches, harmonized with operational requirements in Annex 6 to the , which governs aircraft operations and ensures consistent safety minima worldwide. In the United States, the (FAA) adopts these ICAO principles but applies specific criteria via the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS, FAA Order 8260.3), which details obstacle clearance, descent gradients, and alignment for final approaches. procedures (IAPs) are codified under 14 CFR Part 97, prescribing standardized minima and paths, with variations such as the (LDA) permitting offsets up to 30° from the centerline for terrain-constrained sites, unlike standard localizers limited to 3° offsets. Regional authorities introduce adaptations to ICAO baselines for local conditions. The (EASA) approves steeper glideslopes exceeding 4.5° under Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes (CS-25), requiring specialized aircraft certification for steep approach landings to mitigate noise or obstacle issues. mandates cold-temperature corrections in Advisory Circular (AC) 500-020, adjusting final approach altitudes and vertical path angles below conditions to counteract errors from low temperatures. An illustrative variation is (MHTG) in , where terrain necessitates a short final approach segment of approximately 1.3 nm from the FAF, approved under ICAO-compliant special procedures despite deviating from nominal distances.

References

  1. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap4_section_3.html
  2. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-f.html
  3. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/FAA-H-8083-16B_Chapter_4.pdf
  4. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-s.html
  5. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/FAA-H-8083-16B_Chapter_3.pdf
  6. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-m.html
  7. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.3D_vs3.pdf
  8. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/09_afh_ch8.pdf
  9. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/10_afh_ch9.pdf
  10. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/expert-sets/105355/
  11. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/world-war-i-aviation-l-photos/
  12. https://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Government_Role/landing_nav/POL14.htm
  13. https://www.icao.int/convention-international-civil-aviation-doc-7300
  14. https://flyingthebeams.com/its-fate
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA030150.pdf
  16. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/SatNav_March08.pdf
  17. https://www.airport-technology.com/news/newsheathrow-to-trial-steeper-approach-to-reduce-noise-pollution-4644350/
  18. https://skybrary.aero/articles/instrument-landing-system-ils
  19. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap1_section_1.html
  20. https://aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/glideslope-gouges/
  21. https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/17304
  22. https://www.heathrow.com/company/local-community/noise/making-heathrow-quieter/slightly_steeper-approaches
  23. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/performance/use-these-formulas-to-calculate-a-three-degree-descent-rate-from-cruise-through-touchdown/
  24. https://ffac.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ICAO-Doc-8168-Volume-I-Flight-Procedures.pdf
  25. https://aip.enaire.es/aip/contenido_AIP/AD/AD2/LEAL/LE_AD_2_LEAL_IAC_4_en.pdf
  26. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap2_section_3.html
  27. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/16_phak_ch14_0.pdf
  28. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-79A_Chg_2.pdf
  29. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_90-66b.pdf
  30. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap1_section_2.html
  31. https://skybrary.aero/articles/stabilised-approach
  32. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-108A.pdf
  33. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/b6eb2adc248c484192101edd1ed36015/unstable-approaches-2016-2nd-edition.pdf
  34. https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/aug/56407/faa%2520p-8740-40%2520windshear%255Bhi-res%255D%2520branded.pdf
  35. https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions
  36. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-50A.pdf
  37. https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/3365.pdf
  38. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-51D.pdf
  39. https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/nearly-half-of-commercial-jet-accidents-occur-during-final-approach-landing/
  40. https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf
  41. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.3F.pdf
  42. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-97
  43. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-l.html
  44. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online-publications/easy-access-rules-large-aeroplanes-cs-25
  45. https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/ac_500_020v3.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.