A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intercepting the ILS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 26th 06, 06:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

Your procedure is just fine - better because it is simpler.
Certainly legal because 1800 is a minimum, not a mandatory altitude.
However:

(1) For a localizer-only approach, you would want to make the descent
to 1800 prior to JOTLY to avoid an unnecessarily steep final descent.
(2) When following the glideslope, you are still responsible for
meeting any crossing restrictions,. A good example is the CIVET 4 STAR
into LAX http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0601/00237CIVET.PDF
On a standard day, following the GS will meet the crossing
restrictions, but on a hot day it may not (the pressure levels are
higher). This can result in loss of separation with IFR traffic
crossing below. Pilots have been busted for this.
(3) Another reason to pay attention to step-down altitudes while
following ther glideslope is that it isn't certified for use or flight
tested at arbitrarily large distances from the antenna.


I would continue flying it your way. Likewise on the ILS 25R into
LVK from TRACY, I always stay at 3300 until intercepting the
glideslope, rather than descending first to 2800. There can be nasty
up and downdrafts over the Altamont. There's no need to expose
yourself to them at an unnecessarily low altitude.

Ed (LVK CFII)
http://williams.best.vwh.net/


wrote:
Hello,

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?

- Jerry Kaidor (
)

  #13  
Old January 26th 06, 06:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

It depends. If you look at the ILS for MHR (Mather, just north of where
you were), you are below the glideslope for most of the approach. There
are several step downs on the approach.
However, from a real world point of view, when I've shot the ILS into
Stockton in fog, I remember just flying the GS because I was lazy.
-Robert

  #14  
Old January 26th 06, 06:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

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


wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello,

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?

- Jerry Kaidor ( )



  #15  
Old January 26th 06, 07:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

In article , Bob Gardner
wrote:

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


For which airport?
  #16  
Old January 26th 06, 07:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

In article , Bob Gardner
wrote:

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


Nevermind the "Which airport" question if my cancel didn't work, I
found it; Boeing field, I assume.

I can't see why they would have chewed you out -- if the instruction
was something like "Maintain 2500 until established on the localizer,
cleared the ILS 13R," you did nothing improper. If he wanted you at
2200, he should have instructed you to do so; the chart only lists it
as a minimum altitude, as most do.

What if you weren't DME-equipped? How would you know you were within
10NM of NOLLA, and thus safe to descend to 2200? You really wouldn't,
unless you had done the procedure turn, or the controller had cleared
you with a "You're X miles from NOLLA" (and X happened to be less than
10 miles).

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/
  #17  
Old January 26th 06, 07:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

I can tell you that I have been told to intercept the ILS at altitudes
well above the glideslope intercept altitude at the FAF by ATC. I have
been cleared for the approach outside of the FAF. I followed their
instructions and flew the approach. Never have had a problem. I don't
see what the problem is, so long as you are intercepting the glideslope
from below, and so long as you are at least as high as is charted you
should be. So long as you make sure you are at the proper altitude when
you cross the FAF, I don't see the problem. Unless I see it as unsafe
or some obvious violation, I do what ATC tells me to do.

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. Not much different than what you did, now is it? In the
meantime, the freq is crowded and in all the confusion someone else is
hosed, maybe you too as ATC might have to leave you and talk to someone
else. Or maybe, in the meantime your plane has gotten out of shape
(have fun going missed). To some extent we pilots have to rely on ATC
to be telling us to do the right thing. Sure, watch out for being
cleared into a mountain, but something like this seems ok to me.....

Some pilots take the tactic not to have ATC control them, but have them
control ATC by telling ATC what they are going to do and that they
expect that as their clearance. You can try that approach, but
sometimes it backfires. Me, I have discovered I can't fly the airplane
and do ATC's job too. But then I rarely have the luxury of a copilot.

  #18  
Old January 26th 06, 07:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

Another comment I would make is if you decline ATC's instruction at
this point, you are probably going to end up going missed (or
intercepting the glideslope from above).

  #19  
Old January 26th 06, 08:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS



Garner Miller wrote:
In article , Robert
Chambers wrote:


Were you timing the approach as well for when the GS goes out of service
as they sometimes do on IPC rides? the timer should start at the FAF
which can be a busy time if you're going down, staying centered,
maintaining airspeed, calling the tower at FAF if that's what they
wanted, etc.



The Final Approach Point (not fix) on an ILS is the published
glideslope altitude (in this case, 1800) intersecting with the
glideslope. That's NOT where the timer for a LOC approach would
start, because there's no glideslope to define the point!


In this instance there's a 5.3 DME defining the FAF, and the Outer
Marker it's 4/10th of a mile from GS intercept. It's a busy time. I
didn't say he started timing at GS intercept at 1800, I believe I did
say at the FAF. With an IPC you expect things like GS's to fail which
adds to the workload. Thats all I meant.
  #20  
Old January 26th 06, 08:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intercepting the ILS

Doug wrote:
I can tell you that I have been told to intercept the ILS at altitudes
well above the glideslope intercept altitude at the FAF by ATC. I have
been cleared for the approach outside of the FAF. I followed their
instructions and flew the approach. Never have had a problem. I don't
see what the problem is, so long as you are intercepting the glideslope
from below, and so long as you are at least as high as is charted you
should be. So long as you make sure you are at the proper altitude when
you cross the FAF, I don't see the problem. Unless I see it as unsafe
or some obvious violation, I do what ATC tells me to do.


The OP didn't say what ATC's instruction was, so we don't know. I don't think
ATC's instruction is relevant to the OP's question. The OP just wanted to know
whether descent to 1800 was mandatory. As far as we know, ATC didn't instruct
the OP one way or the other.

snip
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.