Real world ILS question

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

HelloAs a flight sim fan,but a person of limited real world aviation knowledge i was wondering why some airports that are capable of taking passenger aircraft(not talking tiddlers here)don't have an ILS landing system?(certainly the case in fs9)as it seems to me to be the best and safest way of landing aircraft.(again i am talking sim here.)I always get a bit of a cold sweat up when i am told to expect vectors visual as my ILS landings are (usually)pretty good,but my visual approaches still leave a lot to be desired :-) (although i am improving) did a good visual landing at YVCG (COOLANGATTA Australia) last night as there was no ILS at this airport.Andy

[Guest RonB49]

Me too, sim pilot but not a real pilot. I have however had several landings in the right seat of a light plane and made one landing myself from the left seat. First of all, you can't imagine how much better you can see (field of vision) and how much easier it is to judge distance (depth perception) in a real plane. In flt sim, I fly a downwind way out so that I have a 3 -5 mile final and I need that much time to get a proper setup to make a visual appoach and landing. My one landing, when the instructor told me to turn onto the base leg, we were less than a mile but there was plenty of time to get my bearings and turn on to final and land without the IP telling me when.Another thing to consider is practice. You probably make an ILS landing every time that you can; many real-world pilots only meke the ILS landings required to maintain their proficiency rating. Whenever possible, especially at busy airports, tower will authorize a visual approach because it is quicker than an ILS approach.It bothers me more that passenger planes, even fast jets, land at airports without towers. Now THAT bothers me when I on 'em.R-

[michal 44]

>did a good visual landing at YVCG (COOLANGATTA Australia) lastCoolangatta I think is YBCG, you may check that.In some places in the world weather is generally so good that ILS makes no economical sense, it is an expensive system to install and maintain. This airport apparently has VOR-DME approach as well as new RNAV-GPS approaches. The famous Princess Juliana airport in St.Maarten has no ILS either - and many big jetliners from Europe land there every day.At some airports (may not apply to YCBG) installation of ILS may not be possible due to terrain clearance. In such places the only precision approach possible is so called RNP approach - probably the most technologically advanced approach in today's aviation world. Requires specially equipped aircraft and crew certification. Some airports in Alaska and New Zealand already have it but it is also being deployed on Australia's Gold Coast. RNP is the Queen of all approaches.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

>>>did a good visual landing at YVCG (COOLANGATTA Australia)>last>>>Coolangatta I think is YBCG, you may check that.>>In some places in the world weather is generally so good that>ILS makes no economical sense, it is an expensive system to>install and maintain. This airport apparently has VOR-DME>approach as well as new RNAV-GPS approaches. The famous>Princess Juliana airport in St.Maarten has no ILS either - and>many big jetliners from Europe land there every day.>>>Michael J.>http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpgYour right Michael it is YBCGAnd i did wonder weather one the reason was cost.And Ron its interesting what you talk about visibility in the real world and that in FS because it can be truly very difficult to pick out the rnwy sometimes in FS.Those real world pilots don't know how easy they have it.:-) cheers AndyPS i have over the years used either the ILS or visual aprroach and have neglected the other different type of apps and should really gen up on those.

[scott967 62]

Many runways have RNAV approaches without any conventional navaids, and with the modern GPS units that are equipped with WAAS, it is possible to get a "glideslope-like" vertical approach.scott s..

[RFields5421 1]

In tropical regions - an ILS is often redundant and just a very expensive maintenance item. As mentioned above TNCM doesn't have an ILS.The US Virgin Islands, Le Raizet at Pointe-A-Pitre on Guadeloupe and Grantley Adams at Bridgetown Barbados are the only ILS on that island chain.In other places where the weather merits the cost of ILS the terrain simply will not allow the necessary straight in approach. And ILS does need about 5-6 miles of straight in approach clear of terrain obstacles.Aspen Colorado (KASE), Juneau, Alaska (PAJN), Lake Tahoe in California (KTVL) - all of these and many more airports come up on these forums as "Microsoft screwed up on this airport" because people don't know the difference between an offset localizer and an ILS, or just a plain LOC/DME approach.KTVL - http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/05416LDAD1_18.PDFPAJN - KTVL - http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/05416LDAD1_18.PDFKASE - http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/05889LDE.PDFNOTE - the landing localizer is not in FS2004 and there is no addon which makes this approach work in FS2004. Jim Vile has a file in the library for FSX to add the LOC/DME to KASE - http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...fcad&DLID=97399The localizer present in the default FS2004 airport for KASE is used for missed approaches and departures on Rwy 33 to keep departure aircraft from being head to head with aircraft landing on Rwy 15 and keep departure aircraft out of the mountains. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/05889ASPEN.PDF

[Guest DanWalloch]

Everyone else has already posted very good info. I would just like to add that in the age of WAAS and RNP, there is probably a very good chance of seeing more airports getting precision approaches that don't require the approach lighting. Also an ILS requires at least 5000' of runway. An ILS, on average, costs around $2-3 Million to install and about $1 Million each year to maintain. A lot of smaller airports just can't justify the cost.