HI-ILS approaches?


#1

flightaware.com/resources/airpor … ILS+RWY+06

Just noticed this today. Can anyone explain the difference between this and a regular ILS approach?


#2

The HI-ILS approach:
204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0605/00050HI6.PDF
Has an initial approach fix that is 20nm from the Locator Outer Marker that comes from the LDK (Crimson) VOR and calls for an altitude of 16,000 feet at that point.

The ILS approach:
204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0605/00050I6.PDF
Calls for a 16nm DME arc from a fix off of the VUZ (Vulcan) VOR at 2,600 feet, or to start a back course from the outer marker at an altitude of 3,000 feet.


#3

I think they are for a continuous descent. They save fuel and reduce noise to houses by not requiring jet traffic to descend to a couple thousand feet above ground sometimes as far out as 15-20 miles from the airport. It isn’t uncommon to have a 10-15 mile final approach at low altitude for jet traffic.

The service volume (certified useable distance) for a localizer is listed as 18nm, I don’t know how far the glideslope is usable. I have never been cleared to follow it at higher than normal vectoring altitudes. It will become irrelevant when they start flying more gps/fms continuous descent approaches. Then they can be even curved.

It isn’t listed in the FAA’s online AIM. I saw one for Springfield, MO so it isn’t just for the biggest airports. Springfield is only Class C. They won’t affect me much since I only fly piston single engine. I suppose they could use it even in small airplanes, just intercept at a lower altitude. I can’t find any info on the FAA’s site.


#4

The HI-ILS 6 at BHM Birmingham, AL

Wow, That plate really looks like the FAA dropped the ball on incorporating explanations for these. It looks half done. I would think the IAF could be LDK VOR also not TAALO. Otherwise they should have a requirement for RADAR or minimum RNP performance.

What is the holding pattern depicted below the ATIS box in the upper left hand corner? The 144/324 radial is not referenced to anything I can see. Is it the old fashioned FAA holding pattern entry definition? (The one you have to know for the written test)

The missed approach is to an intersection but has no published holding direction? It doesn’t make sense.

The speeds are for category C - E airplanes only so it is obviously a large airplane procedure. (120 knots or greater approach speed).


#5

If they put the IAP/stack hold over LDK, that would force any traffic on V-routes (and for higher traffic J-routes) to climb/descend/fly around the VOR to stay clear of the traffic. The chart gives sufficient information that a pilot filed /A can fly the approach.

The missed approach is to an intersection but has no published holding direction? It doesn’t make sense.

That’s because there’s no hold at the fix :wink: The aircraft would probably be turned and put back on the holding stack at the IAF before reaching TRUST .


#6

I agree DME would let you get there. But you woudn’t be able to fly direct to the fix without GPS or ded reckoning. I know it is a silly argument but it seems to be how they do it on other charts. You and I know we could get there with DME. I just wonder why they aren’t consistent. Maybe they are becoming “enlightened”?

What do you think of the procedure turn (I guess it can’t really be called a holding pattern) entry chart for the IAF below the ATIS? That is all I can think that it could be. When was the last time where you saw direct and parallel entries spelled out on an approach lilke that. Is isn’t like they just specified no PT authorized.


#7

Very easily. Join the VUZ R-095 outbound, then when you cross the OKW R-049, you’re over TRUST. All non-RNAV fixes are defined by either a DME and radial, or the intersection of two or more radials, which with an ADF a pilot can easily fly.

What do you think of the holding pattern entry chart for the IAF below the ATIS? That is all I can think that it could be. When was the last time where you saw direct and parallel entries spelled out on an approach lilke that. Is isn’t like they just specified no PT authorized.

My bet is the approach used to have the feeder routes from Montgomery VOR and another VOR which is no longer a transition direct to the IAF, but has been revised so that all transitions now go direct LDK first.


#8

When I was talking about the DME nav I was referring to TAALO as an IAF if you had to do it non-radar and without RNAV. Sorry for the confusion. A couple VOR receivers would make it easy.

The procedure turn is something new to me the way they depicted it. They could have labeled it as No-PT , teardrop and parallel instead of (a),(b), etc…

I have looked for a conflicting airport to the West of BHM and can’t find why they are so worried about procedure turn entry. The planes would be separated by altitude so it has to be conflict with something.


#9

I’m not a pilot, so I’m not sure but…

The way I read it, you are not suppossed to fly direct to TRUST on a missed approach. I would climb to 4000 while flying runway heading until intercept of VUZ R095. Then I turn right and fly R095 unit I cross OKW R049. Now I am @THRUST.

No DME,GPS, ior Dead Reckoning required.


#10

In general procedure turns are being eliminated in favor of holding patterns over the IAF to bring people down to the approach altitude, which I suspect is what happened to this approach. I think the radials on the holding pattern are for pilots flying the Montgomery R-324 direct to the IAF rather than flying the Montgomery transition into the approach.


#11

JAL-50 USAF right in the middle at top.

Now look at 204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0605/00604HI2.PDF
Springfield, MO HI-ILS2 at SGF which is more conventional but still depicts the entry holding pattern on the chart at the top.

33 miles out. It also has USAF in it but I think these are civil procedures.

I think it has to do with the large turn radius at the speeds they are flying above 10,000 feet. (No speed restrictions other than ATC).

Now look at the HI-TACAN 20 for Springfield. I know TACAN is military but it gives a point of reference for discussion.
204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0605/00604HT20.PDF

Notice the depicted holding entries are now on the missed approach for the TACAN approach, not the entry procedure. They do match the same geography as the initial for ILS-2 SGF.


#12

I now believe these are USAF procedures. The regular approaches have FAA in place of where the USAF is. I know some of these airports are dual civil/military.

I don’t have my books to thumb through so it is harder than online but I bet all of the recently included FIPS procedures are marked with the heavy black marks at the top and bottom like these approaches if they are a military procedure.

Peoria has max holding pattern speeds depicted. I have forgotten about holding pattern speed requirements per FAA since I don’t fly anything that fast. I don’t know if the military is exempt from those or not. There are altitude based max holding pattern speeds.

Odd that they would depict holding entries for pilots as proficient as military pilots.