ILS question

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.


In that case, you can descend to 4000 immediately. But why descend to 4000
at all? At the time you were cleared for the approach you were about 900
feet below the glideslope.

wrote in message ...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...


Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.

It's also a fundamental part of being qualified to hold an instrument
rating.

Yup, well, I'm certainly aware of ASR and PAR approaches, though I'd
momentarily forgotten that they're what the term 'radar approach' refers to,
in contrast with 'radar vectors to an approach'. Now that my embarrassing
lapse is remedied, I hope my qualifications are restored.

Meanwhile, I'm still not certain I understand the example in AIM 5-4-7b.
When the specified clearance is to "maintain 2000 until established on the
localizer" (after being vectored to and cleared for the ILS approach), does
the clearance actually mean not just until established on the localizer, but
also "until established on a published segment" of the approach? That
interpretation is suggested by the preceding caveats and the subsequent note
in 5-4-7b. But if that's right, the phrasing of the clearance is confusing.

--Gary

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's
a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life,
the less effective the training is.


So do your training under IFR.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

Yes.


So when you turn inbound on the hold you're not on a published part of the
approach?



For the purposes of altitude, only if you are receiving "vectors to final"


Which he was in this case.

wrote in message ...

5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an
altitude below the G/S for a PA.

"b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart.
c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent
in accordance with the published procedure."


That's swell, but you said controllers were supposed to step down to the
altitude shown on the chart. Where is that requirement?



Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes
for controllers. ;-)


I think you'll find that 5-9-4 follows 5-9-1.

Because I could descend to 4000 fast and then get slowed down.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR.


In that case, you can descend to 4000 immediately. But why descend to
4000
at all? At the time you were cleared for the approach you were about 900
feet below the glideslope.

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

Because I could descend to 4000 fast and then get slowed down.


Why do you want to do that?

Because it would be much harder to get slowed down going down the
glideslope, trying to get below gear speed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

Because I could descend to 4000 fast and then get slowed down.


Why do you want to do that?

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

Because it would be much harder to get slowed down going down the
glideslope, trying to get below gear speed.


Well, why is that necessarily harder? Why do you want to go so slow so far
out? Even if you do, why is it harder to slow down at 5000 than it is at
4000?

At 5000 I was going to intercept the GS very shortly. I was going too fast
to put the gear down. Instead of incercepting the glideslope at 5,000 and
following it down 700 feet a minute where it would be very difficult to get
under gear speed, you can haul down to 4,000 feet (at 1000 - 1500fpm), then
start slowing down. Then when you hit HAIGS, you step down to the next fix
and then configure the airplane for GS intercept.

It was in a C402 which can be difficult to slow down, without shock cooling
the engines. if you intercept the glideslope high, it would be tough to get
within gear speed without bringing the engines way back (shock cooling).

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

Because it would be much harder to get slowed down going down the
glideslope, trying to get below gear speed.


Well, why is that necessarily harder? Why do you want to go so slow so
far
out? Even if you do, why is it harder to slow down at 5000 than it is at
4000?