Why do so few airports have ILS approaches in the sim?  Doesn't seem correct.  Is this something yet to be done?

LouP

3 minutes ago, LouP said:

Why do so few airports have ILS approaches in the sim?  Doesn't seem correct.  Is this something yet to be done?

LouP

What are some airports that seem to be missing an ILS approach?

Al

There will be even less soon as in Australia VORs have almost been phased out and Europe and the USA have agreed to do the same though they have kept pushing the action dates out.  In general RNAV has taken over.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by harrry

I haven't spent as much time in the sim as some, but I've yet to find an airport that has an ILS in real life but is missing it in the sim.  Do you have an example? 

In reality, many small airports do not have an ILS, and that's becoming more true with the proliferation of RNAV approaches using RNP or LPV.  If in doubt about the types of approaches an airport has, take a look at the airport info online.  Skyvector is a good resource. Not all countries allow them to show approach plates, but I think the info will tell you what they have, anyway. 

24 minutes ago, harrry said:

There will be even less soon as in Australia VORs have almost been phased out and Europe and the USA have agreed to do the same though they have kept pushing the action dates out.  In general RNAV has taken over.

Although in some cases VORs provide fixes used during an ILS approach, in general VORs don't have anything directly to do with the ILS system equipment. What they do have in common is they both are relatively expensive to set up and maintain.

In response to the OP, it is one thing for an airport to have an RNAV approach instead of an ILS approach, or just not to have an ILS approach, but I don't recall coming across ILS approaches that exist in real life but are missing in the sim.

Al

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by ark

ILS requires a localizer transmitter on the ground at the airport. As far as I know no new runways being built are serviced by this older type of equipment. The new approach electronics are using GPS (satellite) nav data instead of radio signal beams for non military aircraft. One can only wonder what the consequences would be, in the event of wartime , when GPS systems (RNAV source) would be compromised or shutdown when necessary. 🙂

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by Eclex

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/16-087FAC_Aus-aircraft-nav-modernisation-program_WEB.pdf

gives some information on the Austraian impementation of this.  Other countries have similar policies but a different timeline.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Eclex said:

ILS requires a localizer transmitter on the ground at the airport

And a glide slope antenna, and a least one marker beacon, and approach lights. The installation of an ILS system typically runs into Millions of dollars, and yearly maintenance could easily be in the $10,000 ball park. So no wonder RNAV approaches which don't require ground based antennas are taking over.

The main costs for setting up an RNAV (GPS) LPV approach is the development and charting of the procedure itself. I don't have a feel for what might be a typical cost for that, but it should be a lot lower than the total cost of setting up and maintaining an ILS system.

Al

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by ark

1 minute ago, ark said:

And a glide slope antenna, and a least one marker beacon, and lights.

My local airport doesn't have marker beacons. The were removed long time ago. Now we have GPS fixes and that it

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

My local airport doesn't have marker beacons. The were removed long time ago. Now we have GPS fixes and that it

Interesting. So to do an ILS or Localizer approach you also need GPS capability? I thought at least one marker beacon or NDB was required so if a Localizer approach was being used for some reason, the marker would identify the FAF, although DME or a VOR radial could also be used for that.

Al

EDIT: It looks like at KCRQ, if that is your home airport, the ILS uses a DME fix to identify the FAF. Upon further reflection it may be a Cat II or CAT III ILS requires at least a middle or inner marker. I would have to go check.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by ark

5 minutes ago, ark said:

Interesting. So to do an ILS approach you also need GPS capability? I thought at least one marker beacon or NDB was required so if a Localizer approach was being used for some reason, the marker would identify the FAF, although I guess DME or a VOR radial could also be used for that.

Al

https://skybrary.aero/articles/instrument-landing-system-ils

should put you on the right track ILS has nothing to do with GPS

 

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by harrry

1 hour ago, harrry said:

should put you on the right track ILS has nothing to do with GPS

Thanks, but as a instrumented rated PPL (in my younger days) I am well aware of that. That's why I was surprised by the response and was asking the question.  Since the context of my post was about ILS approaches I thought that was what the response was referring too.  Age problem! 😉

Al

EDIT: Based on the next post below, it looks like GPS is required in some cases to identify fixes associated with an ILS approach.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by ark

8 minutes ago, ark said:

Interesting. So to do an ILS approach you also need GPS capability? I thought at least one marker beacon or NDB was required so if a Localizer approach was being used for some reason, the marker would identify the FAF, although I guess DME or a VOR radial could also be used for that.

Al

Similar situation at my home airport KELM. The markers were removed years ago. The entry for the ILS 06 used to be a teardrop turn off of the Elmira VOR, but that VOR is out of service below 10,000 feet. The entry is now a holding pattern on the IF/IAF UNOLY, and requires RNAV-1 GPS. Likewise the ILS 24 used to be a left procedure turn at a specific DME distance from the (now non-operational) Elmira VOR, but now commences at the IF IREKE with a holding pattern and GPS is required. The IAF is still the ALP NDB, but that could go away at any time. GPS is not required to enter either approach if ATC radar is available, but is required to fly either missed approach “as published”.

There are far fewer active marker beacons in the US compared to 10 years ago. Interestingly almost all markers that appeared in FSX are still present in MSFS, though probably 90 percent of them no longer exist. I think Asobo just copied the FSX database for MSFS.

If an ILS has a co-located DME, then IF/IAF will usually defined by DME distances, otherwise it will usually require GPS. There are still ILS approaches with active marker beacons, but far less than there once were. One place where (inner) markers are still common is on CAT II or CAT III approaches.

Just to clarify, ILS aproaches still exist but are being phased out,  

VOR navigation is no longer taught in PPLs in australia at least as GPS has taken over.

VORs are being removed from lesser and even major airports as GPS and RNAV do not need the equipment both on the ground and in airports.

ILS has been retained at some airports as a help to the older aircraft which are not RNAV rquiped but may not last long,

36 minutes ago, harrry said:

https://skybrary.aero/articles/instrument-landing-system-ils

should put you on the right track ILS has nothing to do with GPS

 

GPS is not part of the ILS infrastructure, but many ILS approaches ( at least here in the US) now require GPS to define the IF, IAF and missed approach holding fix. If ATC radar is not available it is not legal to fly the approach “as published” unless the aircraft is equipped with an IFR-certified GPS.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by JRBarrett