Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Commercial
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 70; Flight Crew Total 1993; Flight Crew Type 1005
Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Airport; Aircraft
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.
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.