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

Jerry,
It's been a few years since I flew down to San Jose to watch your first
solo. This thread of some 46 responses made my late arrival all the more
interesting.

There is an interesting side light to the SCK 29 ILS that I learned before I
had my instrument rating which was not required for my CFI back then. I was
flying as safety pilot in VFR as a rated pilot was shooting the ILS to 29
when somewhere about 600' the localizer needel went crazy and all the way to
the right side even though the runway was directly ahead. This was some 30
years ago.

Interesting as to why this might be and happen and I will tell you why but
make your best guess now.

It could be that equipment was not as sensitive as it is today but suggest
those of you who
want to see what happens I suggest that you set the localizer to 110.1
instead of 109.1 and fly the procedure and see how the localizer works, if
at all. Under the right conditions it
should give the same response as I have described. 110.1 happens to the the
Localizer
frequency at one of the two runways (21RL) at Travis AFB.nearly 30 miles
away but in line with Stockton's 29.

When I went on to get my II (double I0 I found that I had learned more about
how instrument mistakes happen flying as safety pilot that when taking
instruction.
Let me know if you give it a try.
Gene Whitt

wrote in message
oups.com...

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?


Your old one. Did your new one happen to say why he felt it was wrong?

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news

FWIW, I have been chewed out by Seattle Approach for intercepting higher
than the published GSIA of 2200 for the ILS 13R.


What was your clearance?

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...

What did your CFI tell you to do? Decline ATC's instruction? If you do
that, the ATC guy is going to be confused and probably ask you what it
is you want to do. In which case you can tell him that you want to go
down to 1800' and intercept there. Ok, descend to 1800', intercept and
cleared.


That may not be possible. If the MVA is 2000 then 2000 is as low as ATC can
go.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1138302691.662580@sj-nntpcache-5...

OTOH, that got me wondering how much above the published glide slope
intercept altitude I would accept. To take an extreme example to
illustrate the question (not a realistic example, of course) suppose ATC
had you intercepting the localizer at 10000 feet.

For the purposes of the thought experiment, assume this still allows you
to intercept the glide slope from below. Could you be confident that the
glide slope had been flight-checked up to 10000 feet? No. You also don't
know that it's been flight checked to 2000 feet. Where do you draw the
line?


That scenario would have you intercepting the localizer 26 miles or more
from JOTLY. If ATC was to issue an approach clearance at that point they'd
have to issue an altitude to maintain until the aircraft was on a published
segment of the approach. "Cross SIMMS at or above two thousand, cleared ILS
Runway two niner right approach."