The more I read the latest thread about the problem with the ILS Z on runway 21 at LECO, the more confused I become. [ Leco ils z rwy21].
In Richard’s comment, he basically said that without a fully working GS (for ALL maneuvers), such procedures will only be coded as LOC. Then, I came up with two questions:
Why can still exists the ILS Y approach for the same runway, since the glide path is the same?
As ABI239 said in the thread, how can exist many other approaches in Spain with similar problems, but they can be effectively coded as ILS- Z?
(In Santiago, Tenerife south, Salamanca, Pamplona, Menorca, Ibiza, Las Palmas, Bilbao or Barcelona)
Moreover, the ILS-Z approach to 21 in LECO, is listed in AIRAC 09/23, AIP Spain.
Right, and thats I guess the misunderstand here … we also have the localizer-antenna, we also have the glideslope-antenna and we also have the DME in the data and as you wrote, you can use it BUT, the procedure itself is coded as LOC approach and not an ILS approach.
I assume, that has something todo with special limita and therefore it can´t be coded as ILS approach. Again, the faclities are all included, available and useable yes (according the AIP) … but that has nothing todo with the coding of the legs for a terminal procedure.
Hi guys,
as promised, we had asked our data provider and they confirmed the missing ILS-Z 21 approach - the procedure will be reviewed from their team with the help of the Spain authority. They are already in contact with the folks there to be able to include this approach in the navdata again.
It seems (without any details), the main point here is the “missed approach” portion according the AIP Spain - because for coding this, it looks ambiguous (ie. the speed restrictions, the dme with the threshold info, …). But again, our data provider works on it with the authority of Spain … we must be patience but I´m pretty sure, that this will be included in one of the next cycles but we haven´t receive any time-line.
Thank you so much Richard. For simmers, as Ian pointed out in the previous dicussion, is not a problem beyond adjusting properly the Baro minimums with the LOC to use the approach with bad visibility. Provider’s answer makes sense, since I can’t find any reason for the missing ILS Z whereas the Y version is there, if the problem is just the common glide path signal issues (usual, by the way, in similar approaches all over the world).
I will calmly wait for the restoration. Thanks again.
Regards.
No, in this case - it seems not a GS issue any longer … it´s more a “unclear” coding for the missed approach part and therefore the review with the authority of Spain.
So, they are in touch with Spain and I´m pretty, pretty sure that they will add it back in one of the next cycles. But again, we don´t have any time-line but normally, Jeppesen is very fast an cooperative (also very thankful for such reports - thanks for that!) to solve such questions.
Thank you for your patience (and of course your input again to this)
Richard
Sure, I totally understand your previous answer. The problem is probably my non-standard English since I’m not a native speaker (southern European guy ) Thinking logically, and that’s what I did, the GP couldn’t be the reason for this and that’s why I came alive this thread again.
Yours.
) Thinking logically, and that’s what I did, the GP couldn’t be the reason for this and that’s why I came alive this thread again.