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. This usually happens when I need
about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

Bad idea. Probably 90% of the time it is O.K., but the other 10% is reason
not to.

I have had many times when controllers have purposefully vectored me through
the localizer and then back on from the other side due to spacing on
traffic. You mentioned that this was happening when the freq was busy.
This is probably also the time when spacing on other traffic could be a
factor.

John Bell
www.cockpitgps.com


"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?
>

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
>
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?
>

While it may or may not be safe, there's no question that it's not legal.
Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC
instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised. The
controller may be bringing you through the localizer for spacing. He's
supposed to tell you if he's doing that, but the freq's just as busy for him
as it is for you. You may need to prompt him about joining the localizer,
but, of course, the freq's just as busy for you as it is for him.

Not safe or legal. The FAA feels so strongly about this you will get
this question on your IFR exam.

Doug wrote:
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

Doug > wrote:
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

If you've been cleared for the approach, or given an instruction to
"intercept the localizer", then it's OK. If your last vector was
simply a heading to fly, then you should just keep on that heading,
even if it takes you through the localizer.

How is guessing what the controller wanted and then busting your
clearance based on that guess "the safe thing to do"?

bad idea, personally if I am anticipating a turn and have not received it
yet, I will slow down a bit, sometimes they will fly you through the LOC
then turn you back onto it for spacing. that has happened to me. I dont
intercept the loc untill told to. if they give me a heading I fly it
untill told otherwise. you can tell them xxx approaching loc request turn
on to loc?


Doug wrote:

> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

There's been at least one case where a controller vectored someone
through the localizer because he'd forgotten him, and they flew into
a mountain. It's best to avoid that. OTOH the other posters correctly
say that just turning onto the localizer without an instruction is
wrong too. The controller should already have warned you if
he is going to fly you through the loc though. I've been flown through
the loc several times, once was for spacing and I was warned, the rest
were all being forgotten (maybe 3-4 times).

My take is this. You need to know the terrain around you. If you're
clear of terrain, just fly the heading, and ask as soon as possible what's
going on... "21Z has flown through the localizer". They'll soon wake
up when they hear that. But if there's the slightest risk of CFIT
then 91.3 applies. If you're headed for the hills (e.g. at San Jose)
and you can't get a word in within 30 secs or so (at spamcan speeds)
then vector yourself away from terrain. They've got you on radar.
But 30 secs is a looooong time, even Norcal 135.4 (Oakland approach)
is rarely solid busy for that long.

Norcal has once vectored me into the hills that were straight ahead of me
for "traffic avoidance". Well, sure, there wasn't any other traffic there.
The U word ("unable") has its place too.

John

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

Doug wrote:
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

It isn't legal to ignore an ATC instruction and it may well not be safe.


Matt

"John Harper" > wrote
> There's been at least one case where a controller vectored someone
> through the localizer because he'd forgotten him, and they flew into
> a mountain. It's best to avoid that. OTOH the other posters correctly
> say that just turning onto the localizer without an instruction is
> wrong too. The controller should already have warned you if
> he is going to fly you through the loc though. I've been flown through
> the loc several times, once was for spacing and I was warned, the rest
> were all being forgotten (maybe 3-4 times).
>
> My take is this. You need to know the terrain around you. If you're
> clear of terrain, just fly the heading, and ask as soon as possible what's
> going on... "21Z has flown through the localizer". They'll soon wake
> up when they hear that. But if there's the slightest risk of CFIT
> then 91.3 applies. If you're headed for the hills (e.g. at San Jose)
> and you can't get a word in within 30 secs or so (at spamcan speeds)
> then vector yourself away from terrain. They've got you on radar.
> But 30 secs is a looooong time, even Norcal 135.4 (Oakland approach)
> is rarely solid busy for that long.
>
> Norcal has once vectored me into the hills that were straight ahead of me
> for "traffic avoidance". Well, sure, there wasn't any other traffic there.
> The U word ("unable") has its place too.

I think this is about the best answer I've seen so far. I would only
add that a vector TOWARDS terrain is not the same thing as a vector
INTO terrain. At low alitudes, almost any vector takes you towards
terrain - eventually.

IMO the thing to do is decide in advance how close you're willing to
get to hard stuff, and not get any closer. A corollary to this (as
stated above) is that you must know where you are. Legally, you are
being vectored and the controller is responsible for terrain
avoidance, but that won't mean much to your pax.

The only other point I would make is this - you need not be in the
mountains for this to be an issue. For example, on the West side of
Houston, most of us go to SGR to shoot ILS approaches. For those
playing along on the home game,
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/SGR_ir35.pdf

Typically, you get vectors to final at 2000 MSL, and are vectored on
the West side of the localizer. I would give the controller about 2
minutes max after crossing the loc before I took action on my own.
The towers are about 8 miles past the loc on a typical vector, and
some of them stick up above 2000.

On the flip side, SGR is a major reliever, and when the weather is
scuzzy the traffic on the ILS ranges from spam cans to bizjets.
Vectors for spacing are often necessary, and typically the same
controller is working SGR and the airliners going into HOU, so the
frequency gets busy. Deciding to turn in on the loc without being
cleared for the approach is bad juju.

Michael

In article >, John Bell > wrote:

> Bad idea. Probably 90% of the time it is O.K., but the other 10% is reason
> not to.

However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention
if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either
incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through
the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic,
either, but they might be talking on another frequency....

Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?"

Mike Beede

In article >,
Mike Beede > wrote:

> In article >, John Bell
> > wrote:
>
> > Bad idea. Probably 90% of the time it is O.K., but the other 10% is reason
> > not to.
>
> However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention
> if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either
> incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through
> the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio
> traffic,
> either, but they might be talking on another frequency....
>
> Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?"
>
> Mike Beede

The controller is indeed supposed to tell you if he's planning to vector
you through the localizer. As you've noticed, it's often not done.
This relatively minor transgression on the controller's part, however,
does not justify your deciding to turn to intercept the localizer
without a clearance.

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message
...
>
> However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention
> if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is
either
> incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through
> the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio
traffic,
> either, but they might be talking on another frequency....
>
> Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?"
>

FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 5. Radar

Section 9. Radar Arrivals

5-9-3. VECTORS ACROSS FINAL APPROACH COURSE

Inform the aircraft whenever a vector will take it across the final approach
course and state the reason for such action.

NOTE-
In the event you are unable to so inform the aircraft, the pilot is not
expected to turn inbound on the final approach course unless approach
clearance has been issued.

PHRASEOLOGY-
EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR (purpose).

EXAMPLE-
"EXPECT VECTORS ACROSS FINAL FOR SPACING."

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Final Approach Course Interception, Para 5-9-2.

On 23 Dec 2003 09:38:02 -0800, Doug > wrote:
>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. This usually happens when I need
>about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
>for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
>busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
>if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
>if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
>its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
>to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?


You and your CFII need to read AIM section 5-4-3, paragraph b.1(b),
which is quite emphatic on this point:

Radar vectors and altitude or flight levels will be issued as
required for spacing and separating aircraft.
<begin bold>Therefore, pilots must not deviate from the headings
issued by approach control.<end bold> 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.

So crossing the final approach course alone does not constitute
sufficient grounds to deviate from your assigned clearance. However,
as other posters have mentioned, approach courses are necessarily
close to the ground, so be ready to deviate to avoid terrain or other
obstructions.

Mike Beede wrote:

> However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention
> if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either
> incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through
> the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic,
> either, but they might be talking on another frequency....
>
> Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?"


Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored
across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:32:32 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored
>across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask.

Well, if the pilot thought the clearance was in error, he should ask. But
other than that, where does it say that the pilot is *required* to ask the
controller if he finds he is being vectored across the FAC without being
specifically told that by ATC?




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:32:32 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Mike Beede wrote:
>
>> However, I read somewhere that the controller must specifically mention
>> if they intend to vector you across the localizer. I conclude this is either
>> incorrect or widely ignored, because the times I've been vectored through
>> the localizer, no one said anything. I haven't noticed a lot of radio traffic,
>> either, but they might be talking on another frequency....
>>
>> Can one of our ATC folks comment on my ill-remembered "fact?"
>
>
>Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored
>across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask.

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


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In article <%q%Fb.183640$_M.836462@attbi_s54>,
Newps > wrote:

>Not safe or legal. The FAA feels so strongly about this you will get
>this question on your IFR exam.
>
>Doug wrote:
>> 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. This usually happens when I need
>> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
>> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
>> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
>> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
>> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
>> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
>> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?
>

Better than in a quiet room with several not so happy FAA types across
the table.

--
Ron

Not safe nor is it legal.

If you are 90 degrees to the localizer then you know you should be getting
another heading change to intercept. You usally get your clearance
instructions at the same time as the intercept heading. If you are getting
in close to the localizer, it does not take much time to call ATC and say
"NNN is looking for a turn". This is a very friendly reminder when you feel
that you should have already received your intercept heading and further
instructions.

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> 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. This usually happens when I need
> about a 90 degree turn to the localizer. I have decided not to wait
> for his vector and just turn. This has always been when the freq is
> busy. There is a very small time window to turn (about 15 seconds), so
> if the freq is busy, I can't request a turn before I am past, so now,
> if this happens, I just turn. I told a CFII this and he said, ok, but
> its not really the legal thing to do. I believe it is the safe thing
> to do, and therefore legal. Any opinions from the group?

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

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:kN7Gb.636826$Tr4.1642464@attbi_s03...
>
> Controllers are required to tell you when you are going to be vectored
> across the localizer. If they don't you are required to ask.
>

Where is that requirement found?

"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.