![airports with localizer back course approach airports with localizer back course approach](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/430377_460a5c9155aa4a74996d9f7444600add~mv2.png)
This is a very important distinction, whose understanding is necessary to make sense of HSI presentation on localizers. Unlike a VOR signal where if you twist the OBS knob 180 degrees, the needle will reverse sides because you have reversed the selected course, the needle deflection on a localizer is unaffected by the selected course which is "hard wired" into the LOC signal, and this the same for both a CDI OBS knob and an HSI course pointer.Īs a result, the needle will deflect in the same direction relative to the course pointer head regardless of whether you are east or west of the antenna (located in this case at the west end of the runway for this RWY 27 LOC) and regardless of where you set the HSI course pointer. Second, this is a localizer, not a VOR radial, so there is no difference in needle deflection direction between the front and back courses because you cannot select a course to fly as you can with a VOR. The needle will deflect in the proper direction regardless of whether you're on the front or back course, and it will not reverse as you transition from front to back or back to front. That is a misnomer which has confused the heck out of folks for many decades. There are many other strange approaches out there–what’s on your list? Add a comment below.First, there is no such thing as "reverse sensing". This video shows just how interesting the airport is. Some procedures in Alaska stretch the definition of “instrument approach.” The NDB runway 34 approach at Sparrevohn, Alaska, advises “successful go-around improbable if initiated past the MAP,” hardly a reassuring thought. minimums? One glance at the terrain on the chart below explains why: The NDB-B approach to Anaktuvuk Pass is a great example. The combination of rugged terrain, sparse navaids and limited radar coverage makes for a truly challenging place to fly IFR. Of course for truly bizarre approaches, there’s no place like Alaska.
![airports with localizer back course approach airports with localizer back course approach](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/87/fd/2a/87fd2a91954cd4da3aba9e2a299db228.jpg)
It’s mainly for noise abatement, and it’s only used with VFR minimums: Review the chart below, then watch it flown in this video.īoston’s Logan Airport also has a charted visual approach, the Light Visual to runway 33L, which requires pilots to fly a radial until spotting the Boston Lighthouse, then turn left to intercept the final approach course.
#AIRPORTS WITH LOCALIZER BACK COURSE APPROACH SERIES#
How can it serve both runways? It’s really a VOR approach that turns into a visual approach, with a series of visual landmarks and lead-in lights.
![airports with localizer back course approach airports with localizer back course approach](http://flythewing.com/308/Blog/Entries/2013/2/12_LP_-_LPV_-_LNAV_-_LNAV_VNAV_-_WTF_files/pic65.jpg)
First up is JFK’s VOR or GPS approach to runway 13L and 13R. Two of the busiest airports in the US feature charted visual approaches that are far from simple. Not all approach plates require fancy navaids. And the missed approach? How about a localizer back course from a navaid on top of a mountain? There are numerous step down fixes, including a chop-it-and-drop-it final segment that requires pilots to lose nearly 1900 ft in just 3.1 nm. The approach parallels some serious mountains and terminates at an airport nearly 8000 ft. It has quite a reputation, and it’s well-deserved. When pilots hear “unique approach,” Aspen is usually the first airport that comes to mind. and stay right there–minimums are 8000 ft. How about an approach that is completely level? The NDB/DME approach to Haily, Idaho, requires pilots to fly the procedure turn at 8000 ft., cross the final approach fix at 8000 ft. You may have practiced DME arcs during your instrument training, but this entire approach is one big DME arc: A good warm-up is the VOR/DME to runway 15 at Martin State Airport near Baltimore.
![airports with localizer back course approach airports with localizer back course approach](http://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/styles/crash_detail_page_image_style_1000x505_/public/crash/images/N418NE.jpg)
Some interesting approaches are hiding in plain sight, serving major airports in populated parts of the country. We’ve restricted ourselves to US airports for this article, and it should go without saying that these charts are not to be used for navigation. One look at the seven examples below shows that where there’s a will, there’s a way. But these challenges aren’t enough to prevent creative TERPs designers from finding a solution. Some airports just don’t lend themselves to an approach, due to terrain, obstacles or airspace issues. In spite of what new instrument students might think, not all IFR approaches are straight-in ILSs to 200 and 1/2.