If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Vectored past the localizer
Several times, while under IFR flight plan and radar services, I have
been vectored to intercept the localizer and the controller was late in turning me into the localizer. This usually happens when I need about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now, if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote in message om... Several times, while under IFR flight plan and radar services, I have been vectored to intercept the localizer and the controller was late in turning me into the localizer. This usually happens when I need about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now, if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group? While it may or may not be safe, there's no question that it's not legal. Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised. The controller may be bringing you through the localizer for spacing. He's supposed to tell you if he's doing that, but the freq's just as busy for him as it is for you. You may need to prompt him about joining the localizer, but, of course, the freq's just as busy for you as it is for him. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bad idea. Probably 90% of the time it is O.K., but the other 10% is reason
not to. I have had many times when controllers have purposefully vectored me through the localizer and then back on from the other side due to spacing on traffic. You mentioned that this was happening when the freq was busy. This is probably also the time when spacing on other traffic could be a factor. John Bell www.cockpitgps.com "Doug" wrote in message om... Several times, while under IFR flight plan and radar services, I have been vectored to intercept the localizer and the controller was late in turning me into the localizer. This usually happens when I need about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now, if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , John Bell wrote:
Bad idea. Probably 90% of the time it is O.K., but the other 10% is reason not to. However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic, either, but they might be talking on another frequency.... Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?" Mike Beede |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mike Beede wrote: In article , John Bell wrote: Bad idea. Probably 90% of the time it is O.K., but the other 10% is reason not to. However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic, either, but they might be talking on another frequency.... Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?" Mike Beede The controller is indeed supposed to tell you if he's planning to vector you through the localizer. As you've noticed, it's often not done. This relatively minor transgression on the controller's part, however, does not justify your deciding to turn to intercept the localizer without a clearance. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Beede" wrote in message ... However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic, either, but they might be talking on another frequency.... Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?" FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control Chapter 5. Radar Section 9. Radar Arrivals 5-9-3. VECTORS ACROSS FINAL APPROACH COURSE Inform the aircraft whenever a vector will take it across the final approach course and state the reason for such action. NOTE- In the event you are unable to so inform the aircraft, the pilot is not expected to turn inbound on the final approach course unless approach clearance has been issued. PHRASEOLOGY- EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR (purpose). EXAMPLE- "EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR SPACING." REFERENCE- FAAO 7110.65, Final Approach Course Interception, Para 5-9-2. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Beede wrote: However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic, either, but they might be talking on another frequency.... Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?" Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:32:32 GMT, Newps wrote:
Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask. Well, if the pilot thought the clearance was in error, he should ask. But other than that, where does it say that the pilot is *required* to ask the controller if he finds he is being vectored across the FAC without being specifically told that by ATC? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:32:32 GMT, Newps wrote:
Mike Beede wrote: However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic, either, but they might be talking on another frequency.... Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?" Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask. Never mind, I just found 5-4-3b1b. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... Never mind, I just found 5-4-3b1b. AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(b) states; "If approach course crossing is imminent and the pilot has not been informed that the aircraft will be vectored across the final approach course, the pilot should query the controller." It does not say "the pilot is required to query the controller" or "the pilot must query the controller". Even if it did, the AIM itself says it's nonregulatory. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aeronautical Engineering Help needed | Marc A. Lefebvre US-775 | Home Built | 94 | January 11th 04 12:33 PM |
ILS Critical Area signage: Localizer or Glideslope? | Adam K. | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 30th 03 10:09 PM |
Established on the approach - Checkride question | endre | Instrument Flight Rules | 59 | October 6th 03 04:36 PM |
Localizer Back Course vs. ILS | ilsub | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 25th 03 04:04 PM |