[jhb_airlines] Re: Innsbruck

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:41:59 +0100

Definitely cool down here yesterday (and today) after three days of
scorching heat. Even with all windows open and three tower fans trying to
get some airflow through the house it was a lost battle.

My apologies but I was going to suggest you come round for a cuppa before or
after the event - but the thought only entered my head after you had
probably set out. I don't know if you have a mobile otherwise I would have
called you.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 15 July 2005 13:57
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Innsbruck

Much clearer, though, in the case of 08, in the absence of VFR GM type
coverage it's not possible to follow the instructions re poer line
turning points.
Been there, done that, think I'll be satisfied with having got away with
the experience.

BTW fom my experience at the S100, yesterday, global warming hasn't hit
Castletown yet. I've only just thawed out.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

>Yep 5000ft QNH is right and the airfield elevation is 1900ft. So, once
>you reach ABSAM at 5000ft you are actually at 3100ft above the runway
>and 7nm out - although going in the wrong direction. Assuming you keep
>to the 2nm turn radius that will give you a track distance of 10.1nm
>from ABSAM to touchdown on 26 (the worst case).
>So, if you are visual at ABSAM and start the turn AND descent right
>away, you are only about 70ft above the normal 3 degree glidepath.
>However you ain't got any glidepath guidance and the tendency is not to
>descend fast enough in these cases so fall back on the rule of thumb
>here - set ROD as 5 x groundspeed (IAS is reasonable if you don't have
>much wind or can't get your G/S data).
>I'll make the point here that I have been using the charts at
>http://www.firwien.at/text/aviation_text.htm to get my data and they
>aren't kosher IAP plates. However they seem to be quite good -
>especially the Visual Approach chart at
>Now a bit of a change as I've only just read the written procedures.
>Here's what it says when you reach ABSAM and decide to go visual:
>"When proper visual reference is established, make right turn with max
>radius 0,9nm (eg 159kt IAS with 25° bank). For runway 26 end right turn
>on HDG 279 and then turn left for final. Obstacles on ground up to 2093
>on final.
>For runway 08 continue on HDG 254, between the crossing high-voltage
>power line and the Brennerautobahn (motorway from the north to the
>south) join right hand downwind runway 08 with HDG 264. Enter base at
>own discretion but before the power line splits in two. Obstacles on
>ground up to 2973 feet."
>With that steeper turn radius it changes what I've said above a bit.
>From ABSAM it only gives you 8.4nm track to touchdown for 08 so, at
>5000ft, you are about 575ft above the normal 3 degree approach. Not a
>great deal and certainly no problem if you are going all the way round
>to 08.
>The only thing to worry about is the comment that high ground rises to
>2093ft on final. Normally it is custom for airfield objects to be
>published with heights AMSL but 2093 sounds odd to me as it is only
>193ft above the airfield. I think the author has mixed datum heights
>and I'll bet this is 2093 QFE - corrected it would be 3993ft QNH. This
>is were I could do with looking at the proper charts as it is this sort
>of confusion that kills pilots.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>Sent: 15 July 2005 07:37
>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Innsbruck
>That would certainly make more sense for the approach to o'hd, followed
>by backtrack. The second turn, for approach to land, remains a problem,
>since it has to be made at about 9 miles, to get rid of the surplus
>3000'. To get nine miles away requires a turn along the valley. I'm
>assuming they might make the turn at a bit less than my 170 kias, which
>would reduce the turn radius. I'm not sure of the height of the terrain
>below which I did this but it was significantly higher than my 5000'.
>Which raises the question, was I right in selectin the 5000' on local
>Gerry Winskill
>Bones wrote:
>>I don't know how high you were when you got overhead the airfield but
>>I now think it should be around 7500ft. Having had a quick look at the
>>chart again I see the picture a bit clearer - the vertical profile is
>>not to the same scale as the plan diagram. This caused me to
>>underestimate distances on my last post. This is what you should see:
>>Leave KTI NDB and establish on the ILS. Retune the ADF to ABSAM NDB
>>(AB 313). You need this as it marks the furthest point you can fly
>>beyond the airfield from which a visual approach can be made -
>>effectively it is the MAP.
>>As you descend with the ILS you have to remember that the DME readings
>>are set to the localiser position approx 11.5nm beyond the airfield.
>>At 11.4DME you are passing 7500ft and should be almost overhead the
>>airfield (if the drawing scale is correct). You continue down to
>>5000ft and you should reach this at a fix called RUM which is 6.5DME -
>>suggesting it is 5nm beyond the airfield (more than the chart
>>indicates but the vertical profile covers almost 40nm across which is
>>much greater than a standard profile of about 15nm).
>>At RUM you level off - tricky in FS because you have to disengage the
>>glideslope but keep the localiser active - and continue in level
>>flight until AB NDB at 4.4DME (7nm past the airfield). If you are
>>visual you now start your right turn and if not you climb like stink.
>>The messiness of this approach is the fact that you need three
>>instruments to cross reference on the way down. ADF for initial ILS
>>intercept then the ILS, then the DME (to confirm the 6.5DME reading on
>>hitting 5000ft) and then the ADF again to watch for ABSAM.
>>If SWMBO wants to fly there pray for westerly winds and a 26 landing..
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
>>Sent: 14 July 2005 19:37
>>To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: Innsbruck
>>Well, having re visited, today, to do a landing on Innsbruck's 08, I'm
>>glad the weather last night favoured 26! Today was clear but the ILS
>>doesn't get you down to 5000' by overhead the field, as it says on the
>>tin. Since there was no cloud, that didn't matter. Though I was flying
>>a Q400, instead of last night's A320, I only just managed to do a 180,
>>to fly downwind. To find enough space to get round, just, onto finals,
>>I had to go far enough back to be round a bend in the valley, with
>>Innsbruck out of sight. If I'd had to attempt it last night there
>>would have been a run on the market for clean underware. If ever SWMBO
>>suggests a holiday there, I'll leave home!
>>BTW, the Dreamwings Q400, using Spada's panel, is a very decent
>>turboprop. But then everyone else has probably found that out before I
>>Gerry Winskill
>>Alastair wrote:
>>>Must admit, I enjoyed my flight to Vienna, although rather long at
>>>around 2 hours flight time.
>>>ATC all the way, UK departure, and centre, Dutch en route ATC, 2 off
>>>German centre controllers, and final arrival ably handled by the
>>>Austrian controller.
>>>FrankTurley@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>In a message dated 14/07/2005 00:16:13 GMT Daylight Time,
>>>>bones@xxxxxxx writes:
>>>>   Tonight saw quite a drop in traffic so it was rather humdrum for the
>>>>   three
>>>>   UK airports.
>>>>I'll say. Flying from Manchester, just me and Bones on channel,
>>>>London Centre, just me and Alex, Norwich approach, just me and Dave.
>>>>Looked at the Servinfo map, the swarm appeared round Austria. I
>>>>couldn't start that early as following the Tour de France on ITV2.
>>>>Frank T.

Other related posts: