Intercepting the ILS

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 ( )

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 ( )

The new CFI is technically correct but the old CFI is far more practical .

wrote:
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 ).
[...]
The new CFII criticized this procedure and told me that the plate
specified 1800, and it was wrong to intercept at 2000.

I can't see any reason not to intercept at 2000. I think your new guy
is full of it.

On 01/26/06 07:17, 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 ( )


I was taught to never intercept the GS from above, due to signal echoes,
etc.

However, there are cases where you're vectored in at a higher altitude.
In this case, you'll actually intercept the GS at the higher altitude
further out from the normal interception point.

You can go ahead and follow this signal down, as a way to get to the
OM at, in this case, 1758'. If you're too high when you get to the
OM, then you're not on the correct GS signal, and you should execute
a missed approach.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

I don't have the plate but did the controller clear you for the approach
2000 till established on the localizer?

If you're established with the loc withiin a couple of dots of the
center - which you should be prior to the FAF then there's no harm in
being at 1800' to do the intercept. Staying at 2000 is ok, you will
just intercept the GS a couple of handfull of seconds earlier than you
would at 1800'.

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.

Robert
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 ( )

On 26 Jan 2006 07:17:15 -0800, " 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?

ATC should have cleared you to maintain 2000 until established, and
that is exactly what I would have done.

Regarding your new CFII's comment. I believe he is confusing this
issue with intercepting the GS from above.

-Nathan

In article .com,
" wrote:

The altitude for glideslope interception is 1800 ( underlined ).

... So [during IPC] 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?

You (and your old CFI) were.

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.

I use the same technique you did every day flying for my airline.
Making an unnecessary 200' step-down-and-level-off is a waste of time
and effort, and makes more motion for the passengers to feel.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

" wrote:

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?

IMO, you did right, as you were still below the glideslope.

This scenario is very similar to my home airport:

ILS 28 at Syracuse, NY:
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00411I28.PDF

Glideslope intercept is at the outer marker at 1800 feet, but ATC almost
always vectors aircraft to intercept the localizer a few miles before the
outer marker and descends the aircraft to 2,100 with the instruction,
"Maintain 2,100 'till established, cleared for the ILS 28..."

I am of the same opinion as you because I fly a retractable gear aircraft.
Gear comes out at glideslope intercept (regardless of where this happens
along the glideslope), aircraft slows and begins a nice 500-600 fpm descent
on its own. Thus, as long as I have descended to 2,100 feet and have been
vectored a couple miles or so before the outer marker, I will still be
below the glideslope. No need to dick around with a further descent to
lose those additional 300 feet with gear and flaps still retracted.

The only caveat is that when I reach the outer marker (already coming down
the glideslope at this point), I quickly confirm that the altimeter's
altitude reading matches the altitude shown on the plate.



--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote:

IMO, you did right, as you were still below the glideslope.

BYW, while it is true that your CFI may have been technically correct, IMO
it was incorrect of him to criticise your method and label it "wrong."

--
Peter

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!

The FAF on the nonprecision localizer-only approach is normally a DME
fix, an intersection, or a marker, and it's /that/ point that's defined
by the maltese cross (and where the clock starts). In the case of
Stockton's ILS 29R, it's a LOM, and you're already on your way down the
glideslope by then, if you're flying the full ILS, whether you've
intercepted at 2000 feet or 1800 feet.


The chart's here in case anyone else wants to see it:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0601/00407I29R.PDF

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/