Intercepting the ILS

Your procedure is just fine - better because it is simpler.
Certainly legal because 1800 is a minimum, not a mandatory altitude.
However:

(1) For a localizer-only approach, you would want to make the descent
to 1800 prior to JOTLY to avoid an unnecessarily steep final descent.
(2) When following the glideslope, you are still responsible for
meeting any crossing restrictions,. A good example is the CIVET 4 STAR
into LAX http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0601/00237CIVET.PDF
On a standard day, following the GS will meet the crossing
restrictions, but on a hot day it may not (the pressure levels are
higher). This can result in loss of separation with IFR traffic
crossing below. Pilots have been busted for this.
(3) Another reason to pay attention to step-down altitudes while
following ther glideslope is that it isn't certified for use or flight
tested at arbitrarily large distances from the antenna.


I would continue flying it your way. Likewise on the ILS 25R into
LVK from TRACY, I always stay at 3300 until intercepting the
glideslope, rather than descending first to 2800. There can be nasty
up and downdrafts over the Altamont. There's no need to expose
yourself to them at an unnecessarily low altitude.

Ed (LVK CFII)
http://williams.best.vwh.net/


wrote:
Hello,

Yesterday I was out getting an IPC. We were doing the Stockton, CA
ILS. ATC
had us intercepting the localizer at 2000 feet. The altitude for
glideslope
interception is 1800 ( underlined ).

My old CFII taught me that the glideslope interception altitude on
the chart is a minimum altitude, and that it was fine to intercept it
higher. So I just tootled along
at 2000 - figuring it was simpler to do one configuration change at GS
interception
rather than three changes - one to descend the 200 feet, another to
level off, and
a third to intercept the glideslope.

The new CFII criticized this procedure and told me that the plate
specified 1800,
and it was wrong to intercept at 2000. Which one was right?

- Jerry Kaidor ( )