Intercepting the ILS

wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:

wrote:

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 ).
[...]
The new CFII criticized this procedure and told me that the plate
specified 1800, and it was wrong to intercept at 2000.


I can't see any reason not to intercept at 2000. I think your new guy
is full of it.

As a matter of regulation, the G/S is to be used as primary vertical
guidance only from the PFAF inbound. There are some places, where early
use of the G/S has resulted in airspace violations, LAX being the most
notable.

Let's be argumentative here. What regulation are you referring to?
In the case of LAX (the Civet 4 arrival I quoted earlier), the
problem was that following the glideslope caused the airplane to
violate published crossing restrictions.

In the case cited, the CFI is nitpicking but is nonetheless legally correct.

At SCK there was no crossing restriction either given in the
clearance or published. The pilot is free to descend *at his
discretion* from 2000 to 1800. Following the glideslope is a perfectly
acceptable way of doing that. The CFI is not only nit-picking, but in
this instance is wrong. Not only that, but he's making additional
unnecessary work.