 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier first officer reported that while on the ILS runway 33 at grk airport the glideslope indications and the PAPI lights were not coincident.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1754566 |
| Time | |
| Date | 202008 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | GRK.Tower |
| State Reference | TX |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | ILS/VOR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Commercial |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 70 Flight Crew Total 1993 Flight Crew Type 1005 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
| Miss Distance | Horizontal 1500 Vertical 1500 |
Narrative:
This was not a near miss or an unsafe experience. This is a description of a glide slope anomaly I wanted to bring attention to.when on the visual approach backed up by the ILS R33 per company policy at grk we witnessed the following indications. When 'on' the PAPI glideslope; we indicated 'low' on the ILS glideslope and received a 'glideslope' callout from our automation. When 'on' the ILS glide slope; we indicated 'high' on the PAPI glideslope with a full white bar. The PAPI 'on' glideslope visuals did not appear to be too low. The visual picture seemed acceptable.so we ended up flying a little high on the PAPI since we are on a visual approach; but a little low without activating further warnings for the ILS in the cockpit backing us up. It was great VFR weather with no glare from sun light. Just wanted it noted in case there is some adjustment needed with the PAPI vs ILS glide slope for runway 33; or if they are meant to not align. We did not see any NOTAMS or notes on approach plates indicating that the PAPI and ILS glide paths were not coincident for runway 33.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air carrier First Officer reported that while on the ILS RWY 33 at GRK airport the glideslope indications and the PAPI lights were not coincident.
Narrative: This was not a near miss or an unsafe experience. This is a description of a glide slope anomaly I wanted to bring attention to.When on the visual approach backed up by the ILS R33 per company policy at GRK we witnessed the following indications. When 'on' the PAPI glideslope; we indicated 'low' on the ILS glideslope and received a 'glideslope' callout from our automation. When 'on' the ILS glide slope; we indicated 'high' on the PAPI glideslope with a full white bar. The PAPI 'on' glideslope visuals did not appear to be too low. The visual picture seemed acceptable.So we ended up flying a little high on the PAPI since we are on a visual approach; but a little low without activating further warnings for the ILS in the cockpit backing us up. It was great VFR weather with no glare from sun light. Just wanted it noted in case there is some adjustment needed with the PAPI vs ILS glide slope for RWY 33; or if they are meant to not align. We did not see any NOTAMS or notes on approach plates indicating that the PAPI and ILS glide paths were not coincident for RWY 33.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.