Looks Can Be Deceiving

One of the best things about an ILS is that you know what youre going to get. The boundaries of TERPS criteria mean they all work pretty much the same: You fly a published altitude to intercept a glideslope, ease down through the amorphous ether toward terra firma and either land or miss.Except for when that is so, so not the case. Take a look at the ILS Runway 16R into Reno/Tahoe (KRNO). On first glance, this is a simple ILS with the primary complication being some obvious terrain in the area. Terrain like that always warrants a close reading of the chart and its notes, usually to find the non-standard climb required if you must fly the missed. Thats not an issue in this case, but there are four other oddities to contend with-one of which is an outright error on the chart.

Key Takeaways:

• Despite the typical standardization of ILS procedures, the ILS Runway 16R at Reno/Tahoe (KRNO) presents several unusual deviations and complexities.
• Key anomalies include a mandatory cold-temperature altitude correction for low temperatures, an unusually large ATC-authorized glideslope intercept altitude variation, and a counter-intuitively higher ILS Decision Altitude (DA) compared to the localizer-only Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA).
• A significant charting error places the missed-approach course incorrectly south of the runway, despite the Decision Altitude being reached miles north of the airport.
• The article emphasizes that pilots must understand these local oddities and their implications rather than flying by rote, despite standard procedure designs.

Key takeaways sponsored by Aviator Pro | Start Your Training ->

See a mistake? Contact us.