GalaxyFlyer wrote:The weather is usually pretty good, even when it’s bad there. I’d bet SAN doesn’t have more than a couple days a year below 1000-3. The approach to North Island is actually one to SAN, then a circle over the terminal buildings.
09 has an ILS, mins are 200-1800 RVR, but no ILS to 27.
https://www.weather.gov/media/wrh/onlin ... TA0904.pdf
GalaxyFlyer wrote:There’s no way you’d get an ILS on 27, too many obstacles and terrain. There are waivers for the buildings especially the famous parking garage on the LOC now.
Woodreau wrote:SAN does have an ILS. Its ILS Rwy 09. For 27 it’s just an RNAV and LOC.
For Rwy 27, the main obstacle preventing 27 from having an ILS approach and causing the displaced threshold is the Laurel Street Parking garage as well as the terrain immediately to the north and east.
For an A320 the mechanics of initiating an ILS and an RNAV is the same, simply press the APPR pushbutton, but equipment providing navigation guidance is different. For an ILS the guidance is based on the ground ILS localizer and glide slope transmitters. For an RNAV, all the guidance is from onboard avionics, the FMGCs and the ADIRUs. For both approach types, you just follow the needles presented on your primary flight display. For an ILS, the needles get more sensitive as you get closer to the runway, for an RNAV they don’t get more “sensitive” as they’re showing a specific distance off centerline or glide path.
I personally prefer the LOC over RNAV but most people prefer the RNAV.
Even flying the LOC, although there is no vertical guidance, the localizer antenna is still an ILS antenna providing the same precision as a full ILS system preventing crashing in to buildings in downtown San Diego. You’d would definitely know if you’re off the localizer, If you were off by 1/5 a mile, it would be full scale deflection for the LOC and you would discontinue the approach rather than trying to continue and find ground references.
27 is “challenging” only if you’re late in getting configured. It’s already hard to slow an aircraft following a normal 3.0 glideslope. Its a little harder with a 3.5 glide path. ATC is usually telling you to keep your speed up as long as practicable because of Southwest running you down from behind. Fly the speed you need to to fly the approach safely, make ATC tell southwest behind you to slow down if they’re overtaking you.
Being a commercial pilot is not about the flying. Flying is the bare minimum demonstration of competency. It’s more about managing your aircraft, crew and passengers and decision making when things don’t go as planned. It’s an easy day when all you have to do is just fly the plane. But unfortunately that’s not what I get to do 95% of the time when I go to work as a commercial pilot.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Yikes! It gets that foggy there?
FriscoHeavy wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Yikes! It gets that foggy there?
It can get foggy anywhere.
e38 wrote:pwm2txlhopper, I'd like to put your question back on track, following some of the previous comments . . .
I think the answer by Woodreau (Reply # 7) was excellent.
Just a couple of additional points, from having flown this approach many times:
1. Yes, the Localizer approach to Runway 27 at San Diego has a descent angle of 3.5 degrees (as well as the RNAV approaches). As you may know, the standard glideslope for an ILS approach is 3.0 degrees. However, that's not particularly challenging if the approach is properly briefed and planned. If you cross the Final Approach Fix, "REEBO," with the aircraft fully configured for landing and at the final approach airspeed, then there is nothing unusual or challenging about this approach. At the company at which I work, it is policy to be fully configured and slowed to final approach speed at the preceding fix on the approach, "CIJHI," which is just over 2 n.m. outside of the FAF. We do not allow SOCAL approach control to dictate our airspeeds on this approach; we tell them what airspeed we need to fly and when, in order to fly a stabilized approach; and they have never disagreed nor argued about the airspeeds we wish to fly. I have never had to execute a missed approach from this procedure as a result of not being properly "stabilized."
2. Keep in mind that during periods of low visibility (i.e., morning fog situation), winds will generally by calm or very light. Therefore, traffic permitting, if the weather is below that required for an approach to Runway 27, we can fly the ILS approach to Runway 09. Again, at the company at which I work, for my particular aircraft, a takeoff or landing with a tailwind not to exceed 10 knots is permitted (as long as your takeoff/landing data is acceptable for that particular runway).
3. Finally, if weather criteria precludes an approach to Runway 27 and an approach to Runway 09 is not feasible (due to traffic, winds, or other operational factors), we divert to our alternate airport--that simple.
Woodreau wrote:For Rwy 27, the main obstacle preventing 27 from having an ILS approach and causing the displaced threshold is the Laurel Street Parking garage as well as the terrain immediately to the north and east.
I figured all the “SAN is one of the most dangerous approaches in USA” crap I’ve heard and read was just that. Is it also not really true that crews need special training with their airline in order to be current to fly the Approach.? I just read that in somewhere recently. And was skeptical.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Try the circle to 18 at North Island off the 27 LOC in KSAN in a MLW C-5 on a rainy night. You’re descending over the terminal building for a 1nm final at NI, I cant imagine the noise level in the building.
rfields5421 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Try the circle to 18 at North Island off the 27 LOC in KSAN in a MLW C-5 on a rainy night. You’re descending over the terminal building for a 1nm final at NI, I cant imagine the noise level in the building.
In 1972 when I was in A School at NTC San Diego, on days when aircraft were landing on Rwy 9, our class room was extended about an hour each day because of the noise of the planes over the buildings / our heads. It was simply impossible to talk for a large part of a minute as the plane came in. My classroom was about 600m dead on the centerline from the threshold. My barracks room was about 700m straight and 50m right of the centerline.
I was very surprised landings were much louder than takeoffs. But of course the higher power level engines were at higher altitudes and climbing.
zeke wrote:Woodreau wrote:For Rwy 27, the main obstacle preventing 27 from having an ILS approach and causing the displaced threshold is the Laurel Street Parking garage as well as the terrain immediately to the north and east.
Sounds like a good candidate for a GLS approach.
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos