View Full Version : What happened on this ILS approach?
Peter R.
July 25th 05, 09:52 PM
[repost due to a posting error reported by Newsfeeds - my apologies if
duplicates do, in fact, exist]
This morning I flew into Erie (KERI), a class D airport in northwest
Pennsylvania along Lake Erie. Weather was low IFR with 500 foot ceilings,
4 mile visibility, and winds out of the southwest. An ILS to runway 24 was
in use:
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00139I24.PDF
Initially I was cleared direct to the airport so I was approaching from the
east-northeast. About twenty miles out, approach began vectoring me for
the ILS. At that point, I was only cleared to descend to 3,200 feet.
Noting the various obstacles around the airport, I can see why the
controller couldn't allow me to descend lower.
About 1 mile from the localizer and about 7 miles from touchdown (an
estimate), approach turned me onto the localizer and told me to maintain
3,200 feet until established. Note the 2,228 ft GS intercept at the OM.
As ATC turned me to intercept the localizer I noticed that I was already
above the glideslope. Upon aligning with the localizer and still a mile or
two prior to the OM, the glideslope needle fell to to the bottom of the
scale. I began about a 750 fpm descent at about 100 kts to see if there
was any movement in the glideslope needle, but to no avail; it remained
pegged.
Thus, I declared a missed at about the OM and requested a second try,
stating that I was too high from the beginning.
Noting the chart, I see that the published approach either requires flying
to the NDB, then descending as one flies outbound to a PT, or fly a DME arc
at 3,200 ft and descending at the last portion of the arc. Both of these
methods appear to provide plenty of room to get established on the
localizer while remaining under the glideslope.
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.
Nonetheless, this one really caught me off guard and I am wondering what I
could have done differently to prevent this scenario. When I briefed the
approach en route, I did note the 2,200 GS intercept and I do recall noting
a discrepancy between this and the 3,200 foot altitude at which I was
instructed to remain, but I certainly didn't act on this discrepancy (as
in, request lower while still outside the localizer, if even possible given
the obstacles).
Incidentally, during the second attempt ATC had me approaching the
localizer at a 90 degree angle from the northwest and didn't turn me until
just about on top of the localizer, which required a pass-through and
re-intercept on the other side. I realize that this tactic is used during
busy times to assist in spacing, but there were no other aircraft on the
approach.
Other than a special VFR aircraft somewhere nearby and an aircraft on the
ground at an uncontrolled airport looking for an IFR clearance, I don't
recall hearing any other activity on the frequency. However, these two
seemed to be receiving more controller attention that I received.
I am interested in other, more experienced instrument pilots' views on
this.
--
Peter
--
Peter
--
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 =----
Bob Gardner
July 25th 05, 10:25 PM
As soon as you noticed that you were above the glideslope, you should have
so advised the controller and asked to be re-vectored for an intercept
further out. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Take charge.
Bob Gardner
"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> [repost due to a posting error reported by Newsfeeds - my apologies if
> duplicates do, in fact, exist]
>
> This morning I flew into Erie (KERI), a class D airport in northwest
> Pennsylvania along Lake Erie. Weather was low IFR with 500 foot ceilings,
> 4 mile visibility, and winds out of the southwest. An ILS to runway 24
> was
> in use:
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00139I24.PDF
>
> Initially I was cleared direct to the airport so I was approaching from
> the
> east-northeast. About twenty miles out, approach began vectoring me for
> the ILS. At that point, I was only cleared to descend to 3,200 feet.
> Noting the various obstacles around the airport, I can see why the
> controller couldn't allow me to descend lower.
>
> About 1 mile from the localizer and about 7 miles from touchdown (an
> estimate), approach turned me onto the localizer and told me to maintain
> 3,200 feet until established. Note the 2,228 ft GS intercept at the OM.
>
> As ATC turned me to intercept the localizer I noticed that I was already
> above the glideslope. Upon aligning with the localizer and still a mile
> or
> two prior to the OM, the glideslope needle fell to to the bottom of the
> scale. I began about a 750 fpm descent at about 100 kts to see if there
> was any movement in the glideslope needle, but to no avail; it remained
> pegged.
>
> Thus, I declared a missed at about the OM and requested a second try,
> stating that I was too high from the beginning.
>
> Noting the chart, I see that the published approach either requires flying
> to the NDB, then descending as one flies outbound to a PT, or fly a DME
> arc
> at 3,200 ft and descending at the last portion of the arc. Both of these
> methods appear to provide plenty of room to get established on the
> localizer while remaining under the glideslope.
>
> 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.
>
> Nonetheless, this one really caught me off guard and I am wondering what I
> could have done differently to prevent this scenario. When I briefed the
> approach en route, I did note the 2,200 GS intercept and I do recall
> noting
> a discrepancy between this and the 3,200 foot altitude at which I was
> instructed to remain, but I certainly didn't act on this discrepancy (as
> in, request lower while still outside the localizer, if even possible
> given
> the obstacles).
>
> Incidentally, during the second attempt ATC had me approaching the
> localizer at a 90 degree angle from the northwest and didn't turn me until
> just about on top of the localizer, which required a pass-through and
> re-intercept on the other side. I realize that this tactic is used during
> busy times to assist in spacing, but there were no other aircraft on the
> approach.
>
> Other than a special VFR aircraft somewhere nearby and an aircraft on the
> ground at an uncontrolled airport looking for an IFR clearance, I don't
> recall hearing any other activity on the frequency. However, these two
> seemed to be receiving more controller attention that I received.
>
> I am interested in other, more experienced instrument pilots' views on
> this.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> =----
Michael
July 25th 05, 11:53 PM
>About 1 mile from the localizer and about 7 miles from touchdown (an
>estimate), approach turned me onto the localizer and told me to maintain
>3,200 feet until established. Note the 2,228 ft GS intercept at the OM.
>As ATC turned me to intercept the localizer I noticed that I was already
>above the glideslope. Upon aligning with the localizer and still a mile or
>two prior to the OM, the glideslope needle fell to to the bottom of the
>scale. I began about a 750 fpm descent at about 100 kts to see if there
>was any movement in the glideslope needle, but to no avail; it remained
>pegged.
>Thus, I declared a missed at about the OM and requested a second try,
>stating that I was too high from the beginning.
What you are describing is far from rare. Basically, it's a bad vector
- or a vector geared to the convenience of the controller rather than
the pilot. I actually got one similar to what you are describing on my
ATP checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud.
I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS
needle was pegged down as I was cleared before the LOC even came off
the peg). However, because I had minimal workload and was monitoring
my GPS, I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I
adjusted the power/speed accordingly. In other words, I reduced power
and slowed WAY down so I could drop down quickly.
When the clearance came, I reduced power even further, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. I had almost 2000 ft
to lose. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on
airspeed as I crossed the marker. Had I needed time to decide what to
do as I got the clearance, I would still have been fighting it at the
outer marker.
All I can suggest in such a situation is this - slow down so you can
descend at a steeper angle, and start your descent as soon as the LOC
comes off the peg (don't wait for it to center). Or just do what you
did - call the miss and ask for better vectors.
> Incidentally, during the second attempt ATC had me approaching the
> localizer at a 90 degree angle from the northwest and didn't turn me until
> just about on top of the localizer, which required a pass-through and
> re-intercept on the other side. I realize that this tactic is used during
> busy times to assist in spacing, but there were no other aircraft on the
> approach.
My personal worst was a 110 degree intercept (at my home base EYQ for
NDB). I know how it goes. I was the only one on the approach too.
****ty vectors are part of the game. It's one of the things
professional pilots bitch about - and it's also something they take
pride in being able to handle.
Michael
Bob Gardner wrote:
> As soon as you noticed that you were above the glideslope, you should have
> so advised the controller and asked to be re-vectored for an intercept
> further out. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Take charge.
I agree with Michael. It happens a whole lot. We used to call them "slam
dunks."
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. 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.
That is what the book says. ;-)
"Peter R." wrote:
> [repost due to a posting error reported by Newsfeeds - my apologies if
> duplicates do, in fact, exist]
>
> This morning I flew into Erie (KERI), a class D airport in northwest
> Pennsylvania along Lake Erie. Weather was low IFR with 500 foot ceilings,
> 4 mile visibility, and winds out of the southwest. An ILS to runway 24 was
> in use:
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00139I24.PDF
>
> Initially I was cleared direct to the airport so I was approaching from the
> east-northeast. About twenty miles out, approach began vectoring me for
> the ILS. At that point, I was only cleared to descend to 3,200 feet.
> Noting the various obstacles around the airport, I can see why the
> controller couldn't allow me to descend lower.
>
> About 1 mile from the localizer and about 7 miles from touchdown (an
> estimate), approach turned me onto the localizer and told me to maintain
> 3,200 feet until established. Note the 2,228 ft GS intercept at the OM.
>
> As ATC turned me to intercept the localizer I noticed that I was already
> above the glideslope. Upon aligning with the localizer and still a mile or
> two prior to the OM, the glideslope needle fell to to the bottom of the
> scale. I began about a 750 fpm descent at about 100 kts to see if there
> was any movement in the glideslope needle, but to no avail; it remained
> pegged.
>
> Thus, I declared a missed at about the OM and requested a second try,
> stating that I was too high from the beginning.
>
> Noting the chart, I see that the published approach either requires flying
> to the NDB, then descending as one flies outbound to a PT, or fly a DME arc
> at 3,200 ft and descending at the last portion of the arc. Both of these
> methods appear to provide plenty of room to get established on the
> localizer while remaining under the glideslope.
>
> 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.
>
> Nonetheless, this one really caught me off guard and I am wondering what I
> could have done differently to prevent this scenario. When I briefed the
> approach en route, I did note the 2,200 GS intercept and I do recall noting
> a discrepancy between this and the 3,200 foot altitude at which I was
> instructed to remain, but I certainly didn't act on this discrepancy (as
> in, request lower while still outside the localizer, if even possible given
> the obstacles).
>
> Incidentally, during the second attempt ATC had me approaching the
> localizer at a 90 degree angle from the northwest and didn't turn me until
> just about on top of the localizer, which required a pass-through and
> re-intercept on the other side. I realize that this tactic is used during
> busy times to assist in spacing, but there were no other aircraft on the
> approach.
>
> Other than a special VFR aircraft somewhere nearby and an aircraft on the
> ground at an uncontrolled airport looking for an IFR clearance, I don't
> recall hearing any other activity on the frequency. However, these two
> seemed to be receiving more controller attention that I received.
>
> I am interested in other, more experienced instrument pilots' views on
> this.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter
>
> --
> 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 =----
Mike Rapoport
July 26th 05, 01:01 AM
Like others have said, it wasn't a great vector. When this happens, I
usually do what I have to do to get to the correct altitude at the OM and
just fly the approach.
Mike
MU-2
"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> [repost due to a posting error reported by Newsfeeds - my apologies if
> duplicates do, in fact, exist]
>
> This morning I flew into Erie (KERI), a class D airport in northwest
> Pennsylvania along Lake Erie. Weather was low IFR with 500 foot ceilings,
> 4 mile visibility, and winds out of the southwest. An ILS to runway 24
> was
> in use:
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00139I24.PDF
>
> Initially I was cleared direct to the airport so I was approaching from
> the
> east-northeast. About twenty miles out, approach began vectoring me for
> the ILS. At that point, I was only cleared to descend to 3,200 feet.
> Noting the various obstacles around the airport, I can see why the
> controller couldn't allow me to descend lower.
>
> About 1 mile from the localizer and about 7 miles from touchdown (an
> estimate), approach turned me onto the localizer and told me to maintain
> 3,200 feet until established. Note the 2,228 ft GS intercept at the OM.
>
> As ATC turned me to intercept the localizer I noticed that I was already
> above the glideslope. Upon aligning with the localizer and still a mile
> or
> two prior to the OM, the glideslope needle fell to to the bottom of the
> scale. I began about a 750 fpm descent at about 100 kts to see if there
> was any movement in the glideslope needle, but to no avail; it remained
> pegged.
>
> Thus, I declared a missed at about the OM and requested a second try,
> stating that I was too high from the beginning.
>
> Noting the chart, I see that the published approach either requires flying
> to the NDB, then descending as one flies outbound to a PT, or fly a DME
> arc
> at 3,200 ft and descending at the last portion of the arc. Both of these
> methods appear to provide plenty of room to get established on the
> localizer while remaining under the glideslope.
>
> 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.
>
> Nonetheless, this one really caught me off guard and I am wondering what I
> could have done differently to prevent this scenario. When I briefed the
> approach en route, I did note the 2,200 GS intercept and I do recall
> noting
> a discrepancy between this and the 3,200 foot altitude at which I was
> instructed to remain, but I certainly didn't act on this discrepancy (as
> in, request lower while still outside the localizer, if even possible
> given
> the obstacles).
>
> Incidentally, during the second attempt ATC had me approaching the
> localizer at a 90 degree angle from the northwest and didn't turn me until
> just about on top of the localizer, which required a pass-through and
> re-intercept on the other side. I realize that this tactic is used during
> busy times to assist in spacing, but there were no other aircraft on the
> approach.
>
> Other than a special VFR aircraft somewhere nearby and an aircraft on the
> ground at an uncontrolled airport looking for an IFR clearance, I don't
> recall hearing any other activity on the frequency. However, these two
> seemed to be receiving more controller attention that I received.
>
> I am interested in other, more experienced instrument pilots' views on
> this.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> =----
Matt Whiting
July 26th 05, 01:13 AM
Michael wrote:
> What you are describing is far from rare. Basically, it's a bad vector
> - or a vector geared to the convenience of the controller rather than
> the pilot. I actually got one similar to what you are describing on my
> ATP checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud.
> I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS
> needle was pegged down as I was cleared before the LOC even came off
> the peg). However, because I had minimal workload and was monitoring
> my GPS, I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I
> adjusted the power/speed accordingly. In other words, I reduced power
> and slowed WAY down so I could drop down quickly.
>
> When the clearance came, I reduced power even further, dumped the nose,
> and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. I had almost 2000 ft
> to lose. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on
> airspeed as I crossed the marker. Had I needed time to decide what to
> do as I got the clearance, I would still have been fighting it at the
> outer marker.
And the examiner was OK with this? I could see them expecting you to
declare a missed at that point. I'm not an ATP so this really is a
question not a criticism. I guess I'd be wondering on a checkride which
course would be best to take.
Matt
Mike Rapoport
July 26th 05, 01:30 AM
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
>
>> What you are describing is far from rare. Basically, it's a bad vector
>> - or a vector geared to the convenience of the controller rather than
>> the pilot. I actually got one similar to what you are describing on my
>> ATP checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud.
>> I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS
>> needle was pegged down as I was cleared before the LOC even came off
>> the peg). However, because I had minimal workload and was monitoring
>> my GPS, I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I
>> adjusted the power/speed accordingly. In other words, I reduced power
>> and slowed WAY down so I could drop down quickly.
>>
>> When the clearance came, I reduced power even further, dumped the nose,
>> and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. I had almost 2000 ft
>> to lose. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on
>> airspeed as I crossed the marker. Had I needed time to decide what to
>> do as I got the clearance, I would still have been fighting it at the
>> outer marker.
>
> And the examiner was OK with this? I could see them expecting you to
> declare a missed at that point. I'm not an ATP so this really is a
> question not a criticism. I guess I'd be wondering on a checkride which
> course would be best to take.
>
> Matt
Most examiners won't pass you on an ATP checkride unless you can make things
work. If you intercept an approach at 90deg for example, instead of a 90
deg turn outbound and then the proceedure turn, you make a 90 deg from the
FAF and parallel the outbound then make a 180. Making all the turns to
follow the line on the chart will exceeded the protected airspace in a fast
airplane.
Mike
MU-2.
Steve Rubin
July 26th 05, 08:58 AM
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
Peter R.
July 26th 05, 01:43 PM
Michael > wrote:
> ****ty vectors are part of the game. It's one of the things
> professional pilots bitch about - and it's also something they take
> pride in being able to handle.
Thank you, Michael. It continues to amaze me how little the instrument
training prepared me for the real world of IFR flying. There really is no
substitute for going out and flying in the system a lot.
--
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 =----
Peter R.
July 26th 05, 01:45 PM
> 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
paul kgyy
July 26th 05, 02:49 PM
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.
Peter R.
July 26th 05, 02:54 PM
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 =----
Michael
July 26th 05, 03:04 PM
> 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
Michael
July 26th 05, 03:20 PM
> 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
gregscheetah
July 26th 05, 03:47 PM
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.
Doug
July 26th 05, 04:14 PM
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.
Peter R.
July 26th 05, 04:28 PM
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 =----
Maule Driver
July 26th 05, 04:47 PM
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.
>
Doug wrote:
> 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.
Some of the pilots at the carrier I used to work for had a standard speech
for center or TRACON controllers when they rode the jump seat on "fam"
trips: The captain would place his hand on the speed brake handle and say,
"This is to correct my mistakes, not your's."
Cute, but I don't think it did much good.
With a light piston, it seems to me the old rule about not dropping below
15 inches of manifold pressure (except on short final) was a pretty sound
rule, IMC or VMC.
max
July 26th 05, 08:06 PM
Sounds like you couldn't do much more to make it happen. My first
thought would have been, as soon as the localizer needle started coming
in, begin as fast a decent as possible to 2300 to see if I could get
there before the FAF. I guess that's basically what you did...
Peter R. wrote:
> As ATC turned me to intercept the localizer I noticed that I was already
> above the glideslope. Upon aligning with the localizer and still a mile or
> two prior to the OM, the glideslope needle fell to to the bottom of the
> scale. I began about a 750 fpm descent at about 100 kts to see if there
> was any movement in the glideslope needle, but to no avail; it remained
> pegged.
>
Doug
July 26th 05, 09:06 PM
Best one to use I've heard is "If I don't get lower soon, I will exceed
my maximum descent profile, need lower NOW!"
Then "Matter of fact, we just exceeded it."
Steven P. McNicoll
July 31st 05, 05:38 PM
> wrote in message ...
>
> Some of the pilots at the carrier I used to work for had a standard speech
> for center or TRACON controllers when they rode the jump seat on "fam"
> trips: The captain would place his hand on the speed brake handle and
> say,
> "This is to correct my mistakes, not your's."
>
> Cute, but I don't think it did much good.
>
It appears then that some are hesitant to use it to correct their mistakes.
In my experience aircraft are too high because they failed to descend in
time on a discretionary clearance far more often than because ATC didn't
clear them down in time.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.