I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
cleared to decent.

I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
glideslope was functioning.

" > wrote:
> I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
> for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
> intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
> down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
> remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
> cleared to decent.
>
> I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
> localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
> glideslope was functioning.

An approach clearance lets you descend to the altitudes published on the
approach plate. A clearance to intercept the localizer is not an approach
clearance, so you can't descend yet.

That being said, it's strange that you would get to GS Intercept and not be
cleared for the approach yet. As I noticed the GS starting to come off the
top peg, I would have asked the controller if I was cleared approach yet.
If not (or I didn't get a response), I would continue to track the
localizer at my last assigned altitude.

If, as you said, you were not cleared to descend until more than 30 seconds
past GS intercept, I would have refused the approach clearance and
requested vectors back around for another try. Divebombing to intercept
the GS from above is not a good plan.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
> for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
> intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
> down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
> remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
> cleared to decent.
>
> I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
> localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
> glideslope was functioning.
>

An instruction to intercept the localizer means intercept the localizer and
nothing more. You cannot descend until you receive either an approach or
descent clearance.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> If, as you said, you were not cleared to descend until more than 30
> seconds
> past GS intercept, I would have refused the approach clearance and
> requested vectors back around for another try. Divebombing to intercept
> the GS from above is not a good plan.

Definitely. Just as excessive descent rates are not something you want in
real IMC (gently does it), the whole point of intercepting a glideslope from
below is to be sure you're following the real one, not a phantom one induced
by the oddities of radio-based navaids.

D.

On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " >
wrote:

>I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
>for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
>down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
>remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>cleared to decent.
>
>I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
>glideslope was functioning.

Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes
shown on the chart.

However...

It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
@ RAL."

Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction?

-Nathan

David Cartwright wrote:

>
>
> Definitely. Just as excessive descent rates are not something you want in
> real IMC (gently does it), the whole point of intercepting a glideslope from
> below is to be sure you're following the real one, not a phantom one induced
> by the oddities of radio-based navaids.


ATC is required to put you in a position to intercept the glideslope
from below.

On 10/3/2005 06:16, Nathan Young wrote:

> On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>>I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
>>for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>>intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
>>down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
>>remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>>cleared to decent.
>>
>>I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>>localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
>>glideslope was functioning.
>
> Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes
> shown on the chart.
>
> However...
>
> It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
> localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
> localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
> to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
> @ RAL."
>
> Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction?

No... he said that he was established on the localizer and was still
told not to descend. It sounds like, as he said, he had not received
an approach clearance yet.

I remember two or three times during my IFR training when I was
established on the FAC but had not received my approach clearance
and had to ask for it.



>
> -Nathan
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:08:22 -0700, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 10/3/2005 06:16, Nathan Young wrote:
>
>> On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
>>>for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>>>intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
>>>down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
>>>remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>>>cleared to decent.
>>>
>>>I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>>>localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
>>>glideslope was functioning.
>>
>> Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes
>> shown on the chart.
>>
>> However...
>>
>> It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
>> localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
>> localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
>> to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
>> @ RAL."
>>
>> Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction?
>
>No... he said that he was established on the localizer and was still
>told not to descend. It sounds like, as he said, he had not received
>an approach clearance yet.

Ahhh, did not read it carefully enough. Thanks.

Nathan Young wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
>>for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>>intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
>>down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
>>remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>>cleared to decent.
>>
>>I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>>localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
>>glideslope was functioning.
>
>
> Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes
> shown on the chart.
>
> However...
>
> It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
> localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
> localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
> to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
> @ RAL."
>
> Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction?

This seems less likely, but maybe the clearance was only to intercept
the localizer and no approach clearance was given. I can't imagine why
a controller would do this, but stranger things have happened.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> This seems less likely, but maybe the clearance was only to intercept
> the localizer and no approach clearance was given. I can't imagine why
> a controller would do this, but stranger things have happened.

I think there are levels of learning to flying instruments. The first
level is learning to do all the stuff right, and that gets you past the
checkride. A higher level is the realization that **** happens, and
knowing how to deal with it without making a crisis out of it. Controllers
make mistakes. Pilots make mistakes. Charts have errors in them.

In the situation at hand, the most likely explanation to me is that the
controller made a mistake by letting the flight pass the FAF fix (GS
intercept on an ILS) without issuing an approach clearance. OK, so he made
a mistake. Three demerits from his QA department if they ever find out,
but for now, just ask him for vectors to reintercept further out and get on
with the business of flying the airplane.

I don't know about other places, but around here I frequently hear:
"Intercept the localizer and track it inbound."
This seems to be most frequently used in visual conditions when the controller
probably expects to clear the aircraft for a visual approach, but the aircraft is
too far from the airport to pick it up visually and is close to the localizer.

Mike
Pvt/IFR N44979 PA28-181 at KRYY

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Nathan Young wrote:
>
>> On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
>>> for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>>> intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
>>> down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
>>> remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>>> cleared to decent.
>>>
>>> I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>>> localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
>>> glideslope was functioning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes
>> shown on the chart.
>>
>> However...
>>
>> It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
>> localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
>> localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
>> to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
>> @ RAL."
>>
>> Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction?
>
>
> This seems less likely, but maybe the clearance was only to intercept
> the localizer and no approach clearance was given. I can't imagine why
> a controller would do this, but stranger things have happened.
>
>
> Matt

wrote:
> Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
> intercept localizer.

No you weren't, you were instructed to intercept the localizer.

> I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
> cleared to decent.

No, you were instructed to descend and then cleared for the approach.

> I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
> localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent?

You need to discover the difference between a clearance and an
instruction, especially the phraseology ATC uses to issue a clearance.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>>intercept localizer.
>
>
> No you weren't, you were instructed to intercept the localizer.
>
>
>>I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>>cleared to decent.
>
>
> No, you were instructed to descend and then cleared for the approach.
>
>
>>I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>>localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent?
>
>
> You need to discover the difference between a clearance and an
> instruction, especially the phraseology ATC uses to issue a clearance.



No, you do. Those were all clearance. A change in routing, a change in
altitude, those are new clearances.

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...

> It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
> localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
> localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
> to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
> @ RAL."

In the UK, standard phraseology is an instruction to intercept the localizer
and report established. When established, a further instruction to descend
with the glideslope is given. A clearance for the approach is never issued.
The UK phraseology seems utterly pointless -- as well as very confusing for
foreign pilots -- when an altitude restriction can easily be applied
instead, as above.

Julian

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> ATC is required to put you in a position to intercept the glideslope from
> below.

By a strange coincidence, I was reading a recent CHIRP publication this
morning, and this very subject came up. The response, if I'm understanding
it correctly, is a little concerning - it implies that there are places
where a glideslope intercept from above is regarded as normal.

The text of the report is reproduced here.

********
Report Text
On several occasions at AAA (UK major airport), I have been vectored to the
ILS, on both the easterly and westerly runways, such that the aircraft is
above the glidepath at localiser intercept.

I have discovered that this is not an unknown occurrence; colleagues within
my Company and from other airlines have suffered similar problems. I
understand that representations have been made to the Duty Supervisor, but
the practice continues sporadically.

As far as I am aware, no aircraft are equipped to intercept the glidepath
automatically from above.

My next course of action will be an MOR, but CHIRP might just highlight the
issue such that an MOR is unnecessary.

CHIRP Comment
It is sometimes the case that height restrictions associated with airspace
structure or particular traffic conditions can result in intercepting the
localiser above the glidepath.

Also, the use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs), required by the
Department for Transport for environmental reasons at some UK airports, is
also considered to be 'best practice' at other locations for the reduction
of noise, nuisance and emissions (UKAIP ENR 1-1-3-1 Para 2.3.1 refers).

One of the principal objectives of CDAs is for an aircraft to join the
glidepath without recourse to level flight. Where the use of CDAs are
promulgated in the appropriate AIP AD2 Section, the detailed procedure
permits the pilot to descend at a rate he judges will be best suited to the
achievement of continuous descent and thus avoid the problem described in
this report. However, no standard RTF phraseology currently exists to cover
CDA procedures and it is not clear that pilots are always aware when a CDA
procedure is being conducted. In view of the important environmental
contribution of CDAs; it would be perhaps appropriate to review this
particular aspect.

If you are positioned significantly above the glidepath at localiser
intercept, submit an MOR to permit the reasons to be investigated.

*****

Regards,

David C

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
>
> By a strange coincidence, I was reading a recent CHIRP publication this
> morning, and this very subject came up. The response, if I'm understanding
> it correctly, is a little concerning - it implies that there are places
> where a glideslope intercept from above is regarded as normal.
>

What is CHIRP? In the US, ATC is required to vector aircraft to intercept
the localizer at an altitude not above the glideslope or below the minimum
glideslope intercept altitude specified on the SIAP.

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
>=20
> As far as I am aware, no aircraft are equipped to intercept the =
glidepath=20
> automatically from above.
>=20
> David C
>

It strains my FAA-trained imagination even to call that a "glidepath =
intercept".

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
> What is CHIRP? In the US, ATC is required to vector aircraft to intercept
> the localizer at an altitude not above the glideslope or below the minimum
> glideslope intercept altitude specified on the SIAP.

The Confidential Human factors Incident Reporting Programme - a way for UK
pilots to report "negative" human factors-induced events that either (a)
aren't necessarily formally reportable or (b) they would rather raise
anonymously rather than complain to their company, for fear of reprisals.
Summaries are produced quarterly, and are seen to be very valuable to the
aviation community, and where appropriate the relevant authorities are
consulted/informed in order that action may be considered, without
compromising confidentiality. Have a look at http://www.chirp.co.uk/.

Cheers,

D.

I have seen this many times on approaches where ATC is sequencing people or
just for ease of navigation and you intercept the localizer a long way out
(greater than 10 NM). Works great. As other posters noted, clearance to
intercept the localizer is not clearance for the approach, and certainly not
clearance to fly the glideslope.

Paul

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Nathan Young wrote:
>> On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL
>>>for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to
>>>intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started
>>>down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to
>>>remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was
>>>cleared to decent.
>>>
>>>I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept
>>>localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the
>>>glideslope was functioning.
>>
>>
>> Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes
>> shown on the chart.
>>
>> However...
>>
>> It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the
>> localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the
>> localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130
>> to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9
>> @ RAL."
>>
>> Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction?
>
> This seems less likely, but maybe the clearance was only to intercept the
> localizer and no approach clearance was given. I can't imagine why a
> controller would do this, but stranger things have happened.
>
>
> Matt