What happened on this ILS approach?

wrote:

The MVA to the left of the LOC (looking southwest) is 3200. On the other side, over
the lake, it is 2300. I presume you were being vectored from the left.

That's correct. I was coming in from the east, over the land.

The ATC
handbook requires the vector to intecept at not greater than a 30 degree angle and
below the G/S. In round numbers that would be an intercept point somewhat over 3
miles prior to WAILS.

There's theory, and then there's reality.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

At 5,500, which is their usual vector altitude in that area, they have to put you
on the localizer at least 5 miles prior to the NDB in order for you to not be
above the G/S. Unless you're arriving from the south, that ain't gonna happen,
handbook requirements notwithstanding.

Steve Rubin wrote:

In article ,
Peter R. wrote:
It *appears* to me that ATC probably should have vectored me further out to
intercept the localizer, given that I was already too high upon getting
established.


I had almost this exact thing happen on the ILS 31 at SNS a few days ago. We
hassled the controller about it, and he didn't seem to understand what we were
complaining about.
--
Steve Rubin / AE6CH / http://www.altdb.net/
Email: / N6441C / http://www.tch.org/~ser/
"Why don't you mind your own business?" -- John Navas 01/04/05
"If you don't like it, keep it to yourself" -- John Navas 01/04/05

I had this happen, though not so egregiously, on my IR checkride. The
Arrow can drop like a ruptured duck when asked, so high sink rate, on
the glideslope. The examiner told me that I had violated the PTS
requirement for an ILS maneuver, but she said the fact that I
stabilized on the GS as soon as I got there made it acceptable.

This would actually be a good thing to practice in the training, in
addition to vectors through the localizer.

paul kgyy wrote:

The examiner told me that I had violated the PTS
requirement for an ILS maneuver, but she said the fact that I
stabilized on the GS as soon as I got there made it acceptable.

I recall my instructor preaching against diving for the glideslope, stating
that dropping at over 1,000 fpm at a low altitude and in IMC could be
problematic.

As the more experienced pilots in this thread pointed out, apparently this
is a viable tactic, but certainly one that develops with experience.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

And the examiner was OK with this?

Yes. But what made it OK was that I saw it coming and prepared for it.
I didn't just make it - I had it made. In fact, I was telling him the
vector was going to be bad as it was being set up, and that I was
slowing down so I could dive. There wasn't much explanation necessary
because he knew the score.

I could see them expecting you to declare a missed at that point.

And at the IR level, you would be right. At the ATP level, there's a
difference. You're expected to make things work - no matter what - and
do it without being surprised and without breaking a sweat. Bad
vectors are very much a part of life. At the ATP level, you're
expected to just take them in stride - not declare a miss, hose up the
sequencing, and get sent to the back of the line.

I'm not an ATP so this really is a question not a criticism.

I understand exactly where you're coming from. The obvious implication
is this - isn't this too much workload to take on? Doesn't adding this
kind of dive to a bad intercept make the outcome iffy? And I guess my
answer is - not for someone flying at the ATP skill level. It's just
not an issue.

I guess I'd be wondering on a checkride which course would be best to take.

I don't think so. Not if you trained for your ATP with an actual
practicing ATP. At least after flying a few hours with a Northwest
captain, I didn't have any doubts about the correct course of action in
that situation.

Michael

I recall my instructor preaching against diving for the glideslope, stating
that dropping at over 1,000 fpm at a low altitude and in IMC could be
problematic.

And he's right - it CAN be problematic. It demands more of the pilot.
Set up that descent and divert attention for a bit longer than you
planned, and you can be in for a once-in-a-lifetime experience - the
kind that comes right at the end. But sometimes it's necessary to get
the job done. So how do you know when it's appropriate? Believe it or
not, there is an answer.

It's appropriate when you can see in advance that you will have to do
it due to factors beyond your control. In other words, it's OK to do
this to fix a bad vector - but not your own mistake. Why? Because if
you already made a mistake bad enough to put yourself in this position,
what makes you think you won't make another that bad? A radical
maneuver that requires better-than-average skill to pull off is a bad
idea if you're using it to fix a mistake caused by your own
worse-than-average performance just minutes or seconds ago.

On the other hand, when you have to do it to fix the mistake of someone
else, one you saw coming as he was making it, it's not a big deal.
You're starting out ahead, not behind.

As the more experienced pilots in this thread pointed out, apparently this
is a viable tactic, but certainly one that develops with experience.

I teach it as part of the initial instrument rating - because this kind
of problem is so common. I will actually create bad vectors for the
student to fly, and teach him how to deal with them. Given what I've
seen at Houston Approach, it's just common sense - he will be dealing
with them sooner rather than later. But that comes AFTER the basic
approach is mastered, and I never allow the student to use these
techniques to fix his own mistakes.

Michael

I agree with Peter. Diving for the GS is never a good idea and should
be exercised only (if ever) by experienced IMC pilots at familiar
airports. Request new vectors so that you get the LOC below the GS, or
request to fly the full procedure. Then the altitude selections are
yours to decide based on the published procedure. This would have been
a good choice in your situation.

Greg J.


I recall my instructor preaching against diving for the glideslope, stating
that dropping at over 1,000 fpm at a low altitude and in IMC could be
problematic.

Not being descended soon enough is one of the biggest complaints the
airline captains have on Approach. ATC seems to think we have a
helicopter out there. Actually, what is happening is ATC sees one guy
do it and assumes everyone can. My Husky can come down 1000' per MILE
at my standard approach speed. It is good to know what YOUR airplane
limitations are. Some airplanes have spoilers and can come down quite
steeply. Other airplanes can't come down so steep.

You just have to make a decision whether to try and dive for it or not.
If you can't dive and make it, might as well level out and request
another try and tell the guy you need lower earlier. I actually think
this is a pretty serious problem. Someone is going to dive on in and
come in hot and long and overun the runway. There is a lot of pressure
when arrivals are lined up NOT to go missed. Such decisions are where
Captains earn their keep.

Michael wrote:

It's appropriate when you can see in advance that you will have to do
it due to factors beyond your control. In other words, it's OK to do
this to fix a bad vector - but not your own mistake.

Excellent distinction. Thanks for pointing that out.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Yep. Thanks!

Peter R. wrote:
Michael wrote:


It's appropriate when you can see in advance that you will have to do
it due to factors beyond your control. In other words, it's OK to do
this to fix a bad vector - but not your own mistake.


Excellent distinction. Thanks for pointing that out.