The ILS is a precision approach, which provides course and decent guidance and can be used down to nil visibility if the airplane is equipped and the pilots are trained. The ILS is used during bad weather instrument weather conditions. On most airplanes the ILS is flown by the autopilot the pilots just observe that the airplane is tracking the localizer.
The VOR approach is not a precision approach and only provides course guidance. The pilots have to follow the approach and manually apply the decent rate. If there is any type of challenging weather, rain, winds, fog, low overcast sky the ILS will be the approach every time.
22R is a departure runway. 22R has 11351 feet available for takeoff, 22L only has 8400 available for takeoff. Additionally 22R is 150 feet wide, while 22L is 2000 feet wide a bigger target to set your big bird down.
22L is equipped as a state of the art arrival runway, the ILS can be used down to nil visibility and has additional lighting for arrival. 22R has a displaced threshold so only 8600 feet are available for arrival. 22L is equipped to be an arrival runway, 22R is a departure runway. This set up increases safety by keeping arrivals and departures away from each other and aids airport efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azzurrony
Samyn,
What dictates the choice of ILS vs. VOR procedure into 22L? Seems to me that the VOR procedure gets used on clear days and nights a lot...which of course impacts GC more in good weather...the time when you want to be outside more.
Also, is there a website which logs how many flights used the ILS vs. VOR approach into 22L? I'd like to try to compile statistics on that and see if it is evenly distributed or not.
Finally, if winds are out of the south, why MUST 22L be used...why can't they use 22R or the other two runways for arrivals (which would not have tailwinds). Is 22R only used for departures?
|