Fri Dec 24, 2021 7:16 am
#1890007
I always assumed it was because of D141 - the other approaches are even more offset (NDB by more than 20°)
Ibra wrote:still does not explain their choice of an offset RNP unless VOR/DME signals are dodgy along coastal line? at least it's the reason why NDB is 100% over land
AlanM wrote:Ibra wrote:still does not explain their choice of an offset RNP unless VOR/DME signals are dodgy along coastal line? at least it's the reason why NDB is 100% over land
Wow
Ibra wrote:AlanM wrote:Ibra wrote:still does not explain their choice of an offset RNP unless VOR/DME signals are dodgy along coastal line? at least it's the reason why NDB is 100% over land
Wow
Haha I was just guessing any other reason why RNP21 with DME/INS will have an offset than the obvious D141, please disregard
Uaglio wrote:Is it not the case that when RNP approaches were first approved by the UK CAA , the associated Safety Case specified that there had to be a nearby navaid with which pilots could conduct a gross error check prior to commencing the approach ? if that happens in real life...... Operationally the IAP may not depend on the navaid, but they did feature in the approval process
chevvron wrote:No; as the localiser is not on the runway centreline, there is a 5 deg offset with the DME zero range at the runway 21 threshold.
The LLZ final approach course is 207 deg M whereas the runway QDM is 212 deg M due to the LLZ being positioned some distance to the left of FAT.
What I'm trying to say is, the offset is beause the LLZ cannot be positioned in line because of its location presumably because the owners decided to cut costs by installing on an already prepared and stable surface as opposed to expensively excavating new foundations; Danger Activity can be 'managed' by LoAs as with other DAs.
Atcomgr wrote:chevvron, all the reasons you have given for the Lydd IAP’s to be offset are not correct. Not one of them.