Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Why no BC (back course) approaches in Europe?

There is limited cost in setting up a BC, but one still has to design and implement the procedure and then have the regular checks. Plus as with an ILS front course the area between the beams and the aircraft must be kept free of obstacles which can affect the lobes/signal.
In many areas eg LFBH the BC would have given no extra than could be provided by the circle to land. I am not sure but I don’t think a BC meant you could use it for CAT 2 or 3 approaches. In fact, is it or was it considered a precision approach.
They were however useful in take off procedures, although as the accident report published on this forum showed, not without risk.
RNP approaches are so much cheaper and more flexible for an airfield management to implement.

France

In Germany, DFS somehow “blocks” the backbeam of the LOC antennas, so that it doesn’t show when the aircraft is on the other side of the airport.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

boscomantico wrote:

In Germany, DFS somehow “blocks” the backbeam of the LOC antennas,

You can actually see this when looking at the localizer antennas: The ones where the backbeam is blocked have a “fence” behind them (typically horizontal metal bars with about 20cm distance)

Germany

Peter wrote:

Is a BC implemented with the normal LOC antenna (which AFAIK always radiates a lobe on the opposite bearing) or is it another LOC antenna?

If the former then a BC could be provided at no extra cost.

I answered that a few posts above: YES, that is exactly what BC is. It uses the same localizer from behind.

No extra cost not exactly, as establishing and flight testing at regular intervals is still a considerable cost driver. But that is true for any form of approaches.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

gallois wrote:

In fact, is it or was it considered a precision approach.

BC always was a Non Precision Approach. Apart from other stuff, it lacks vertical guidance.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Ibra wrote:

The BC approach will have as same minima as ILS circling anyway, so any obstacles OCH argument is rather moot

Not sure about PANOPS, but TERPS allows the straight in to be lower than circling. Minimum circling altitude is the same as the straight in NPA MDA, but may be higher.

KUZA, United States

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Not to forget prevailing winds! There is hardly a point installing an ILS on a runway which might have 2-3 days per year wind which would make its use necessary.

At my airport KUZA, we have had a localizer to runway 2 which was later upgraded to an ILS. We never had a BC, although when RNAV (GPS) procedures became common, we ended up with an LPV200 to runway 2 and an LPV250 to runway 20. I have flown the LPV to runway 20 once in the last dozen years as its use is rarely approved by ATC as the approach overlays the main runway at Charlotte, KCLT. The FAA probably shouldn’t have added the RNAV to runway 20.

KUZA, United States

Peter wrote:

If the former then a BC could be provided at no extra cost.

There may be no additional ground equipment cost. But there is the additional cost of developing the procedure, survey, and regular flight testing.

KUZA, United States

That was an assumption, I should have said “similar for Cat A”: the delta in system minima is negligible between NPA MDA and CTL MDA (250/300 in US land? and 350/400 in CAA/DGAC lands?), obstacles area & margins is “near similar” for light & slow aircraft and if obstacles are big in circling one is likely to slash some sector

Let me bet on it: 100ft delta between CTL MDA vs max NPA MDA on both runway ends, across all BC plates?

NCYankee wrote:

but TERPS allows the straight in to be lower than circling

Surely the case for heavy aircraft Cat C, Cat D (400ft delta is very common)

Last Edited by Ibra at 12 Jan 15:29
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

NCYankee wrote:

Not sure about PANOPS, but TERPS allows the straight in to be lower than circling.

PANS-OPS does not mention BC approaches at all. I’ve checked the list of amendments and there is no mention of BC having been removed, so it looks like PANS-OPS has never included BC approaches.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top