Vectored past the localizer

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Never mind, I just found 5-4-3b1b.


AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(b) states; "If approach course crossing is imminent and the
pilot has not been informed that the aircraft will be vectored across the
final approach course, the pilot should query the controller." It does not
say "the pilot is required to query the controller" or "the pilot must query
the controller". Even if it did, the AIM itself says it's nonregulatory.

In article , David Rind wrote:

I can recall someone on this group once suggesting that if
you're past the localizer and concerned that you may be getting
close to terrain, and the frequency is too busy to get a word
in, that hitting IDENT is likely to cause ATC to notice.

Well, if I'm past the localizer and concerned I may be getting close
to terrain, then I *will* be turning back to intercept, and the guy
sitting in the dark can straighten out any kinks in the traffic flow.
I'm assuming your definition of "concerned" means "I know there's
a mountain in front of me that's higher than I am."

Luckily, we have no actual terrain in Minnesota, though we do
have some radio towers that are pretty impressive near the ILS
14 into St. Paul. Even so, they're well below where you ought
to be. Out here I've tooled along for what seems like a long time
till the controller remembered us, but I've never gotten testy
enough to remind them of my existance. If I did it for a living
(or we were in bumpier country) I might feel differently....

Hope everyone--pilots, controllers, and others on the group--all
have a nice Christmas.

Mike Beede

David Rind wrote:
I can recall someone on this group once suggesting that if
you're past the localizer and concerned that you may be getting
close to terrain, and the frequency is too busy to get a word
in, that hitting IDENT is likely to cause ATC to notice.

This seems like a bit of an aggressive solution, but I'd guess the
controllers would prefer it to someone breaking off from their
assigned heading or altitude because of worries about terrain
avoidance. Could any of the controllers comment on this?

Not aggressive at all and a good idea.

Newps wrote:

Not aggressive at all and a good idea.

NO, it is not a good idea. Read the AIM.

He says he was vectored to intercept the localizer. That means new
heading or not, he is to intercept the localizer. I don't see what
the problem is. If he doesn't intercept, he is not in compliance with
his clearance. Period. That's why he was told the purpose of the
vector.

If he weere given a vector and not told to intercept, then a question
might be in order as the aircraft aproaches the course as to whether
the controller wants him to intercept or pass thru (not unusual)

wrote in message
...

NO, it is not a good idea. Read the AIM.


What's not a good idea? Identing when you can't get ATC's attention on a
busy frequency or breaking off from an assigned heading or altitude because
of worries about terrain avoidance?



He says he was vectored to intercept the localizer.


He said; "Several times, while under IFR flight plan and radar services, I
have
been vectored to intercept the localizer and the controller was late in
turning
me into the localizer." He was being vectored to the localizer but not yet
assigned a heading to join it and instructed to intercept.



That means new
heading or not, he is to intercept the localizer. I don't see what
the problem is.


That was good advice you gave earlier; "Read the AIM". Here's what the AIM
says about this very situation:

AIM 5-4-3.b.1.(b):

After release to approach control, aircraft are vectored to the final
approach course (ILS, MLS, VOR, ADF, etc.). Radar vectors and altitude or
flight levels will be issued as required for spacing and separating
aircraft. THEREFORE, PILOTS MUST NOT DEVIATE FROM THE HEADINGS ISSUED BY
APPROACH CONTROL. Aircraft will normally be informed when it is necessary to
vector across the final approach course for spacing or other reasons. If
approach course crossing is imminent and the pilot has not been informed
that the aircraft will be vectored across the final approach course, the
pilot should query the controller.



If he doesn't intercept, he is not in compliance with
his clearance. Period.


Actually, in this case, he's not in compliance with an ATC instruction if he
does intercept.



That's why he was told the purpose of the vector.


Do you have a reference for that? I thought the primary reason for stating
the purpose of the vector, beyond the simple courtesy of keeping the pilot
informed, was for potential loss of radio communications.



If he weere given a vector and not told to intercept, then a question
might be in order as the aircraft aproaches the course as to whether
the controller wants him to intercept or pass thru (not unusual)


Why would approaching the final approach course without being told to
intercept prompt a question if you'd already been told the vector would take
you through it?

wrote in message . ..
Newps wrote:
Not aggressive at all and a good idea.

NO, it is not a good idea. Read the AIM.

You too. Start with 5-4-3b.1.(b)

He says he was vectored to intercept the localizer. That means new
heading or not, he is to intercept the localizer.

I think you're missing a distinction between the stated reason
for vectors (ie "vectors for the ILS 15 Richmond") and an
ATC instruction to intercept the localizer (ie "fly heading 180,
intercept the localizer")

The situation being discussed here is the former: the pilot
is receiving radar vectors to the FAC, but has not yet been
cleared for the approach nor instructed to intercept the localizer.

So when he observes the needle come alive, what should he do?
The textbook answer is "maintain the heading of his last ATC
instruction and query ATC 'Cessna 12345 through the localizer' "

The common sense/real life answer is "maintain situational
awareness and turn as necessary if the heading will take you
into terrain or obstructions or through the FAC for a parallel
approach. OTHERWISE, maintain the last ATC assigned heading
and query ATC".

The controller is supposed to inform the pilot if will be
vectored through the FAC, but often this doesn't happen --
perhaps the controller believes it will not be necessary
but the necessity develops. However, that doesn't mean
it is "safer" for the pilot to second-guess the controller
and turn to intercept the localizer anyway -- unless he
has been specifically instructed to do so or cleared for
the approach.

I don't see what the problem is.

I hope the problem is clearer now.

If he doesn't intercept, he is not in compliance with
his clearance. Period. That's why he was told the purpose of the
vector.

Um, no. The pilot is told the purpose of the vector ("vectors
for the localizer") because it's a requirement of 7110.65 for
the controller to inform the pilot of the reason for radar
vectors.

Being informed of the purpose of the vector ("vectors for the
localizer") does NOT constitute an ATC clearance to intercept
the localizer ("fly heading 180 intercept the localizer"),
nor should the former be interpreted as the latter.

A pilot who turns to intercept the localizer instead of
flying his assigned ATC heading, simply because he was informed
of the purpose of his vectors, is NOT in compliance with
his clearance. He is violating FAR 91.123, unless a emergency
condition exists. I would consider being vectored into terrain
or towers or towards a parallel FAC in use to constitute an
emergency, JMO.

Hope this helps,
Sydney

wrote:
Newps wrote:


Not aggressive at all and a good idea.


NO, it is not a good idea. Read the AIM.

He says he was vectored to intercept the localizer.

No, he was about to be brought across the localizer. This whole thread
is moot if he was told to join the localizer.


That means new
heading or not, he is to intercept the localizer. I don't see what
the problem is. If he doesn't intercept, he is not in compliance with
his clearance. Period. That's why he was told the purpose of the
vector.

The controller is required to give a reason for the first vector, all
subsequent vectors are assumed to be for the same purpose unless
otherwise stated. You never join the localizer off a vector unless
specifically told to do so.



If he weere given a vector and not told to intercept, then a question
might be in order as the aircraft aproaches the course as to whether
the controller wants him to intercept or pass thru (not unusual)

Yes, thus the reason for my post.

The KSNS (Salinas) ILS 31 approach could be a dicey place to get vectored
past the LOC depending on your airspeed and where you are getting vectored
to etc. I am sure there are approaches others out there. I have flown this
approach in VFR conditions much above the fog layer where I could see the
mountains well. It would be prudent to at least slow down in such instances
and try to raise ATC asap.

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
I can recall someone on this group once suggesting that if
you're past the localizer and concerned that you may be getting
close to terrain, and the frequency is too busy to get a word
in, that hitting IDENT is likely to cause ATC to notice.

This seems like a bit of an aggressive solution, but I'd guess the
controllers would prefer it to someone breaking off from their
assigned heading or altitude because of worries about terrain
avoidance. Could any of the controllers comment on this?

--
David Rind

That's one of the places that I just wouldn't fly through the localizer
toward the nearby mountains, period. I've done that approach in clear skies
also, and if I'm the safety pilot I have the PIC remove the foggles as we
near the localizer on a vector so the point is made.

"S Narayan" wrote in message
...
The KSNS (Salinas) ILS 31 approach could be a dicey place to get vectored
past the LOC depending on your airspeed and where you are getting vectored
to etc. I am sure there are approaches others out there. I have flown this
approach in VFR conditions much above the fog layer where I could see the
mountains well. It would be prudent to at least slow down in such
instances
and try to raise ATC asap.