LeSving wrote:
Do people here really look at those lights? In visual conditions in a light airplane?
Of course. Part of flying a stabilized approach.
Flying the PAPIs at a higher level while following heavier traffic is also a protection for wake turbulence, so it has its uses VFR.
I guess what he wanted to say is that a VFR pilot, in day VFR conditions should be able to fly a proper glidepath even without a PAPI.
A normal VFR approach is above the PAPI indications. 3 Degrees is for IFR approaches, not VFR. So you should be expecting 3 or 4 white lights on a VFR approach.
As Peter says, in the very late stages, they will go red if you’re going for the threshold as IFR flights are aimed for a touchdown zone (usually 300mtr?).
But PAPIs should have no place for a day VFR flight.
dublinpilot wrote:
But PAPIs should have no place for a day VFR flight.
That’s a pretty blanket statement. Care to elaborate?
My comment after watching:
Nice work.
I fly steeper approaches when VFR.
I fly faster than book when gusty, just like you did. I’m afraid of a wind subsiding.
Flare was long-ish, but thats what you get when coming in fast.
Well..the clue is in the name. Precision Approach. Not Visual approach.
dublinpilot wrote:
But PAPIs should have no place for a day VFR flight.
That’s a pretty categorical statement. If you do not pay attention to the visual glideslope indicator, this can happen to you.
I follow the visual glide regardless of flight rules when ever it is available. It is good training, it really forces you to have a stabilised approach (if you believe that has any importance), it maintains the visual perception of the 5% approach path, and I do not think you can argue that NOT getting below it does adds to safety. When I flew out of the Reid Hillview airport outside San Jose, CA, we came in pretty low over a mall and getting too low could definitely mean clipping the landing gear. Following the glide path may make it easier to spot another airplane and avoid one descending on top of another on final.
Then yet other reasons why I stopped coming in high and diving for the numbers, is that I generally land at airports with plenty of runway, and I had at least one instructor (former military) chew me out for doing it.
@Aviathor: +1
@dublinpilot: don’t you think a visual approach should and could be flown precisely? Weird reasoning, but hey, each to his own.
Aviathor wrote:
If you do not pay attention to the visual glideslope indicator, this can happen to you.
Sorry, I think it’s a pretty bad example, because you should be able to clear a road even without assistance. Works fine at several airports with very few incidences, even without PAPI/VASI. (EDKA, EDRF, EDXH, to name a few). I almost never follow them in daylight because they usually don’t lead to my desired touchdown point.
That said, if it’s there just use it, if you like. No need for a categoric decline of aids.
