Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JFK's Canarsie VOR Approach  
User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11287 times:

When planes land on JFK runways 13L and 13R, why do they use the Canarsie VOR approach? How come the ILS approach is never used? I’ve only heard ATC use the ILS approach once on the JFK ATIS and have never seen it in person. Does it have to do with noise abatement or maybe JFK’s proximity to LGA? JFK is maybe 10 miles south-east, and LGA flights are routed in such a way that the traffic patterns of the two airports won’t intercept.

Also, when was this approach pattern initiated? What are your opinions of it? Pilots, what are you comments on it? Also, are there any other airports that use such an approach? I know of Kaitak’s Checkerboard and LGA’s runway 31 expressway visual approaches, but are there any others?

Someone has mentioned that this is a visual approach. I have seen them use this approach in bad and foggy weather. How is this possible if it is a visual approach?

Thanks a lot for your answers!


23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6794 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11204 times:

Just looking at the map, seems like a 12-15 nm straight-in approach to JFK's runways 13 would be a large pain for both LGA and EWR.

User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11195 times:

ILS 13L is never used is probably due to other (LGA, EWR) airports coordination. Imagine if you use ILS 13L, LGA has to use 13 for landing and EWR has to be forced to use 4L/R. I only heard ILS 13L was used once during a heavy fog and the visibility down to about 1/18 mile.

Being born in Hong Kong (IGS 13) and live right under expressway visual approach path. Visual approach always fascinates me a lot!  Nuts

Also Rai, which visual approach are you talking about in the last sentence? KaiTak's? If so, during heavy fog or typhoon (hurricane) 13 is not used unless the wind is really damn strong. The alternative is ILS 31 at KaiTak.


User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11180 times:

He was talking about the LGA RWY 13 Visual (The expressway visual) approach, i believe.

As far as not using the ILS for 13L/R at JFK, like someone said, it would be a major pain for LGA and EWR traffic...


User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11187 times:

what do you mean by "someone" I'm right here yo!

anyway, i guess someone mean LGA RWY 31 and not 13


User currently offlineDavid B. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11171 times:

Is this the right approach?




Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11177 times:

Canarsie Approaches -
xxx
There are 2 approaches which you name the "Canarsie Approach" - One is a standard "instrument" VOR approach, with a MAP missed approach point located on the 041 degree radial, at the 2.6 DME point, the minimums (ceiling and visibility) are 800 feet MDA and 2.5 miles visibility, for both 13 L and R...
xxx
The other one is a "visual" approach - actually called "Parkway Visual" which is flown visually, but actually following the same ground track, that is the 041 degree radial, this approach requires 2,500 feet ceiling and 3 miles visibility...
As far as I am concerned, it is just a regular "visual approach" with a RH base leg - but the approach is published to guide the airplanes away from the "noise sensitive (residential) areas"...
xxx
To keep the neighbors happy, I fly the approach (a 747) with 20 flaps, and call the gear down and flaps 25 when starting the right turn for finals, this reducing the power required from the engines...
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11148 times:

H. Simpson:

Yea.. oops.. meant 31 vis at LGA, although there is the River Vis. RWY 13 as well...


B747Skipper:

Have you ever heard of a controller vectoring a plane to the right of Canarsie, (closer to JFK) to land on 13L? I was near JFK one sunny day, when they were using the Canarsie approach, when I saw this AA 757 or 767 flying a lot lower and a lot closer to JFK than the rest of the planes, and it made a steep steep almost 90 degree turn to the right and landed.. reminded me a lot like the pictures I've seen of Kai Tak. There was a plane fairly close behind it, but on the regular Canarsie path. I found this very cool, and always wondered what it would have been like to be on that plane...


User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11139 times:

Jcxp15, there's a lot of cool action from the CRI VOR App, one day I was standing at the spot for 13R and a aeromexico Md-82 just poped out from nowhere and make a 130 degree turn from around 2.6 DME and landed on 13R.

13R's landing is pretty amazing to watch, sadly not many planes land on 13R though


User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11149 times:

Thanks for the responses so far, guys!

Homer and David: Are you guys from Queens? I'm from Jackson Heights. I live right under the landing path of LGA's runway 4 (they're landing over my house right now!). We should all get together for a spotting session one day. So far, Mirrodie, BigPhilNYC and myself have done a session at LGA. It was great fun. And David, do you really live that close to JFK?

Homer: 13R landings are used fairly often in the mornings and mid afternoons by DL and airlines using T1 when departure traffic isn't as intense. They choose this to cut down on the time it takes to taxi to the gate. And I was talking about the Canarsie VOR approach. Skipper said that it is generally done visually.

Skipper: I seriously doubt that noise abatement has anything to do with the Canarsie approach. Like I just said above, I live right under the approach path of LGA's runway 4. This is a primarily residential area and they often switch to this runway for landings after 10:30PM. Landings can last until 2AM. So, if they really cared about noise abatement, then they'd use the LDA approach runway 22, where they land over Flushing Bay.


User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11149 times:

Landing on 13R from the 2.6 point is a little "tight" at times, by chance, there is a long runway to balance faulty judgements on glide paths... I much prefer 13L for landing, when visibility is somewhat "marginal" - I know exactly where the runway "is" thanks to landmarks well known - to me...
xxx
Never personally came "in" as described "inside" Canarsie, even though I am an old JFK dog... I was JFK based with PanAm for many years... nowadays it is a thrill for me to go back to my former "home" where I hardly recognize anything on the ground, including PanAm's Worldport... That Delta emblem brings tears to my eyes... 11 years already since DEC 1991... Know that three former PanAmigo pilots commited suicide in the few months after the end... By chance the Argentines adopted me, I have a new home, and will never will forget that... The Delta and United interviews in 1992 were an insult to me...
xxx
Sorry to write like this - PanAm was my family...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11124 times:

Landing on 13R from the 2.6 point is a little "tight" at times, by chance, there is a long runway to balance faulty judgements on glide paths... I much prefer 13L for landing, when visibility is somewhat "marginal" - I know exactly where the runway "is" thanks to landmarks well known - to me...

Arrrgh!!  Angry That's why they should use the ILS approach!


User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11114 times:

Hey Rai, I live in Forest Hills, contact me on AIM: Continental77720 and may be we can get together for spotting!

btw, Rwy 4 had been quite busy for landing for these couple days, any idea why? I missed a lot of action due to those damn SATs..


User currently offlineJeff G From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 436 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11088 times:

Arrrgh!! That's why they should use the ILS approach!

The minimums on the "Canarsie" VOR approach are relatively high, and within those minimums, this is a safe procedure. The ILS requires a long final approach segment stretching far into Queens toward LGA, and isn't necessary unless the visibility or ceiling is too low, the winds are too strong and out of limits for either 22L/R, 4L/R and 31L/R. Airline pilots are big boys; they can handle a turn or two on final.


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6794 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11029 times:

Okay, suppose they were flying an ILS to 13L at JFK.

At 16.34 nm from the threshold you would pass above the final for 22L at EWR (at a point 6.29 nm from the EWR threshold). Is that a problem? Maybe not.

At 11.8 nm from the threshold you're over the middle of the Hudson. Arrivals to LGA runway 22 usually cruise north up the Hudson at 4000 ft, right? So they'd have to go elsewhere.

At 10.44 nm from the threshold you pass the Empire State Bldg, 0.12 nm left of your ground track. Charted elevation 1515 ft. Problem there? Maybe not.

At about 7.18 nm you would pass above the final for runway 4 at LGA (at a point about 3.55 nm from the LGA threshold). But LGA probably wouldn't be landing 4, so no problem there?


User currently offlineH. Simpson From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 949 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11032 times:

Timz, you don't understand how busy the skies of New York can get...

User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10974 times:

Timz:

You also have departing traffic. Plus, they're not going to let a plane fly at the alt of the Empire State Building... it'd probably have to be at least 1000' above that, esp in bad weather...

So you'd need to be at least 5000' up to avoid LGA traffic (you could drop LGA traffic to like 3000' or 3500'), then at least 2500' above Midtown Manhattan.
If LGA is using 4 or Expressway visual 31, then the Hudson is no problem, but then you'd have to be still be at least 2500' over the ESB, and probably exceed that altitude to clear LGA traffic.




User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6794 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10942 times:

...I assume there's some reason the ILS to JFK 13L would be a pain for LGA and EWR. The point of my last post is that it's not immediately obvious which traffic would conflict.

If EWR is landing 22L their arrivals will be at maybe 2000 ft when they pass beneath the JFK arrivals which will be at maybe 5000 ft at that point. EWR departures off 22R are no problem.

If LGA is landing 22 and departing 13 the arrivals will have to cruise up the Hudson at 5000-6000 ft instead of their present 4000. Maybe this is a problem, but can anyone say how, exactly?

If LGA is departing 13 maybe they'd have to climb straight out instead of the customary initial right turn; aside from noise this is no problem?

I just mentioned the ESB for completeness; since JFK 13L approaches would ordinarily be at least 3000 ft at that point I assume its no problem, but if somebody knows better let's hear it.

I assume they couldn't land on LGA runway 4 while JFK was landing 13L, but how big a problem is that? If they wanted to use 4 at LGA they'd probably be using 4R at JFK anyway.


User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10923 times:

Homer: I'm up any time for some spotting! My e-mail address is in my profile. Yeah, they've been using 4 for landings for the past two weeks! That's never happened before. It's usually a 2-3 day cycle for 22, 4 and 31 landings. But not lately...anyone know why?

I'll comment on a few points made thus far. The 4's are hardly ever used at JFK anymore. It has to do with their refitting (getting them ready for the A380's). They're being used right now, but that's because visibility is really, really poor today. Most likely, they'll switch to the 31's this afternoon, regardless of the weather.

As far as the LGA 13 climb, the initial turn has absolutely nothing to do with noise abatement, as it is directed over a very heavily populated area (Flushing). I couldn't explain why they make that initial right turn. Occasionally, they do the straight climb off 13, but that's only in very special circumstances, like during the U.S. Open. I should also note that when the 22's are being used at JFK, LGA 13 departures make a complete circle upon take-off.

Also, 22 landings depend on the take-off runway. If 13 is being used, then planes will cruise up the Hudson. If 31 is the departing runway, then they'll cruise up Queens, up to the Bronx, before turning to the final approach.


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6794 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10927 times:

"when the 22's are being used at JFK, LGA 13 departures make a complete circle upon takeoff."

Most 13 departures make the initial right turn to a 180 heading (which I assume is intended to take them over Flushing Meadow Park). I guess some flights to Boston might make several right turns and eventually end up heading NE, and some flights to Florida might make a series of left turns and eventually (maybe five minutes later) end up heading south-- but I don't guess anybody ever makes a 360-degree turn, either direction, "upon takeoff", do they?


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6794 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10914 times:

Back to JFK: I have the chart for the Canarsie approach to 13L/13R dated 12/68. No idea how long it existed before that.

User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10895 times:

Visibity in the NYC area is very, very bad now. They're using ILS runways 13L for landings! Damn! Too bad I'm not there to see it!

User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10891 times:

Timz:

Actually, most departures out of LGA use the Whitestone or Flushing climbs, which involve a a turn to the left, rather than right... The Flushing climb, turns right to 180 degrees first until at 2.5DME from LGA, and then makes the right turn.
You can verify this info with BigPhilNYC, as he lives in College Point, and observes this almost daily.

Also, you're JFK ILS 13L argument is flawed... If you use the ILS 13L at JFK, you are no longer able to use the Expressway visual for LGA (which is used very often), as well as the ILS RWY4 (as previously stated). Also, the planes landing on RWY22 do not always run up the Hudson. A lot of them fly over Queens, over LGA, left or right into the Bronx, and then a 180 degree turn to RWY22. I would imagine they are still fairly high up while over the ILS RWY13L path at JFK, but it still adds a complication. Also, I don't know too many people who want to have heavy aircraft flying over Midtown Manhattan, especially close to the ESB, every 2 minutes... If something were to go wrong on the approach, God forbid, you could end up having a huge mess in Midtown, as well as near the ESB. With two planes already taking down two buildings, I don't think people would be too comfortable seeing them that close to the ESB.

In short, could the ILS to RWY 13L at JFK be done? The answer is yes (and I would love them to do it, b/c that would mean those hvy planes flying right over me, and I would have a clear shot of them all the way to the RWY)... will it happen? probably not too often..

Rai:

You said they were using the ILS RWY13L at JFK? Did you mean the 31L/R? If not, do you know how far away the planes start on the ILS?


User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10891 times:

Rai:

You are in fact correct.. they are using the approach to ILS RWY13L at JFK..
Also, they are using the ILS/DME RWY13 approach at LGA... This definately does not happen very often...

Now as for the JFK 13L, how far "deep" into the ILS will the planes fly? I cannot hear any flying over me right now, which either means they're too high (or most likely they're not flying over me) and I'm in Midtown Manhattan, near the ESB... Anyone have the proper routing for the ILS RWY 13L at JFK.. Do they turn at TELEX to line up?

That brings on another point.. What is the approach route to the ILS/DME RWY13 approach at LGA? They must take the planes way into NJ, and then turn them to line up with LGA RWY13...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic JFK's Canarsie VOR Approach
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
VOR Approach Into Queenstown, NZ posted Tue Sep 23 2003 07:46:56 by TWAMD-80
13R Approach In JFK posted Sat Sep 17 2005 03:42:22 by Levg79
Unusual Approach At JFK posted Mon Dec 13 2004 07:06:50 by UCLAX
VOR/DME Approach posted Wed Oct 27 2004 17:21:01 by Rossyboy
13L Approach At JFK posted Thu Sep 7 2000 23:08:54 by Turboprop
VOR/ILS posted Wed Nov 8 2006 08:47:11 by Zvocio79
JetBlue And RNAV/VOR Approaches posted Mon Oct 16 2006 19:00:18 by IAHFLYR
BOS Runway 14/32 Approach posted Fri Sep 22 2006 16:19:00 by Vikkyvik
Approach Speed & Cruising Height posted Tue Aug 29 2006 18:42:54 by HKA
A Question On Transition From Star To Approach posted Thu Aug 17 2006 06:35:47 by Zarniwoop
Costs Of Flying 777 From LHR To JFK posted Sat Mar 22 2014 00:27:49 by ukoverlander

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format