Intercepting the ILS

What I'm having difficulty reconciling is the following statements of
yours:

"If you can receive the G/S prior to the PFAF, it's only advisory in
any
case, so you are free to use it as you choose, provided you don't
violate any minimum segment altitude or stepdown fixes or any aspect of
an ATC clearance."

I totally agree.

"The new CFI is technically correct but the old CFI is far more
practical."
"In the case cited, the CFI is nitpicking but is nonetheless legally
correct."
"I agree that the CFI is procedurally wrong, although legally correct."


So how can you assert these, *given that in this instance* it is
physically and logically impossible to "violate any minimum segment
altitude or stepdown fixes or any aspect of
an ATC clearance", because
a) the ATC clearance was to maintain 2000 until intercepting the
localizer, and
b) the procedure was to descend on the glide slope to the minimum
segment altitude (1800) at which point the G/S becomes primary.

The point is that blindly following the glideslope has the potential
at places *other than SCK* of causing violations of published
altitudes. Following the G/S is not a violation per se, busting
published or ATC assigned altitudes is.
The CFI is not "technically correct" or "legally correct". What he
could have said, after the flight, is that if one chooses to follow the
G/S prior to the PFAF one needs to be mindful that published and ATC
assigned altitudes have to be complied with, but that at SCK that was
not an issue.

If an altitude is underlined, it is the MINIMUM altitude...
if an altitude is over-lined it is the maximum altitude. If
it is both under and over-lined the altitude is mandatory.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


wrote in message
oups.com...
| What I'm having difficulty reconciling is the following
statements of
| yours:
|
| "If you can receive the G/S prior to the PFAF, it's only
advisory in
| any
| case, so you are free to use it as you choose, provided
you don't
| violate any minimum segment altitude or stepdown fixes or
any aspect of
| an ATC clearance."
|
| I totally agree.
|
| "The new CFI is technically correct but the old CFI is far
more
| practical."
| "In the case cited, the CFI is nitpicking but is
nonetheless legally
| correct."
| "I agree that the CFI is procedurally wrong, although
legally correct."
|
|
| So how can you assert these, *given that in this
instance* it is
| physically and logically impossible to "violate any
minimum segment
| altitude or stepdown fixes or any aspect of
| an ATC clearance", because
| a) the ATC clearance was to maintain 2000 until
intercepting the
| localizer, and
| b) the procedure was to descend on the glide slope to the
minimum
| segment altitude (1800) at which point the G/S becomes
primary.
|
| The point is that blindly following the glideslope has
the potential
| at places *other than SCK* of causing violations of
published
| altitudes. Following the G/S is not a violation per se,
busting
| published or ATC assigned altitudes is.
| The CFI is not "technically correct" or "legally
correct". What he
| could have said, after the flight, is that if one chooses
to follow the
| G/S prior to the PFAF one needs to be mindful that
published and ATC
| assigned altitudes have to be complied with, but that at
SCK that was
| not an issue.
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote

If an altitude is underlined, it is the MINIMUM altitude...
if an altitude is over-lined it is the maximum altitude. If
it is both under and over-lined the altitude is mandatory.

Jim, you've really got to make a better attempt at keeping up
with these threads.

Garner Miller posted this a few days back:
1800 is the minimum altitude; that's why it's underlined only on the
bottom of the number on the NACO charts. If it were mandatory, it
would have lines above and below (or the word "Mandatory" on Jepp
charts), and you would have to go down to 1800.

Bob Moore

I would try to monitor these groups 24/7 but sleep and other
tasks get in the way. Some posts get lost, some are
snipped, some don't include any of the previous post, sorry
if I post something that has been covered before.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
|
| If an altitude is underlined, it is the MINIMUM
altitude...
| if an altitude is over-lined it is the maximum altitude.
If
| it is both under and over-lined the altitude is
mandatory.
|
| Jim, you've really got to make a better attempt at keeping
up
| with these threads.
|
| Garner Miller posted this a few days back:
| 1800 is the minimum altitude; that's why it's underlined
only on the
| bottom of the number on the NACO charts. If it were
mandatory, it
| would have lines above and below (or the word "Mandatory"
on Jepp
| charts), and you would have to go down to 1800.
|
| Bob Moore

Jim,

In particular Ed is trying to get Tim to explain why Tim thinks it is "technically illegal" to follow a
glideslope down to the glideslope intercept point instead of flying level at the glideslope intercept altitude.
I'm waiting for that explanation as well (though I suspect it was just some "sloppy" phraseology on Tim's
part).

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message newsPUCf.69835$QW2.2295@dukeread08...
I would try to monitor these groups 24/7 but sleep and other
tasks get in the way. Some posts get lost, some are
snipped, some don't include any of the previous post, sorry
if I post something that has been covered before.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
|
| If an altitude is underlined, it is the MINIMUM
altitude...
| if an altitude is over-lined it is the maximum altitude.
If
| it is both under and over-lined the altitude is
mandatory.
|
| Jim, you've really got to make a better attempt at keeping
up
| with these threads.
|
| Garner Miller posted this a few days back:
| 1800 is the minimum altitude; that's why it's underlined
only on the
| bottom of the number on the NACO charts. If it were
mandatory, it
| would have lines above and below (or the word "Mandatory"
on Jepp
| charts), and you would have to go down to 1800.
|
| Bob Moore