Vector altitude for ILS below GS intercept altitude?

[M]

Is it common for the approach controller to vector for an ILS at an
altitude below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP? Today is the
third time in the last year or so that Victoria terminal vectored me
for the ILS into BLI at 2000 feet, instead of 2100. I'm very familiar
with the area and I did not bother to question them.

The Canadian controllers provide approach service for Bellingham
probably from an agreement between FAA and NavCanada. Maybe the rules
are somewhat different in Canada, or they just don't have the right
information on this approach?

See http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0604/00045I16.PDF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Is it common for the approach controller to vector for an ILS at an
> altitude below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP? Today is the
> third time in the last year or so that Victoria terminal vectored me
> for the ILS into BLI at 2000 feet, instead of 2100. I'm very familiar
> with the area and I did not bother to question them.
>
> The Canadian controllers provide approach service for Bellingham
> probably from an agreement between FAA and NavCanada. Maybe the rules
> are somewhat different in Canada, or they just don't have the right
> information on this approach?
>
> See http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0604/00045I16.PDF
>

US controllers in US airspace are 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 approach plate.
Where control responsibility within Canadian airspace has been formally
delegated to the US by Canada, US controllers apply basic FAA procedures
with a few exceptions:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp12/atc1201.html

It may be that what the Canadian controllers are doing is entirely proper
for Canada and the parts of the US where control responsibility has been
delegated to Canada.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> US controllers in US airspace are 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 approach plate.
>
Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC. Does
it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?

[Robert M. Gary]

> Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC. Does
> it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?

In my experience, when you get a slam dunk approach they don't clear
you for the approach but just tell you 'intercept the loc, decend
maintain 1,500". Once you are below the GS they clear you for the
approach.

-Robert

[A Lieberman]

On 1 May 2006 14:51:59 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> In my experience, when you get a slam dunk approach they don't clear
> you for the approach but just tell you 'intercept the loc, decend
> maintain 1,500". Once you are below the GS they clear you for the
> approach.

Hmmm, I have been slammed dunked, but not the way you describe it.

KHKS Brenz is the final approach fix 1900 glide slope intercept

Scenario Me doing practice approaches, at 3000 4 miles outside Brenze

Approach 43L descend and maintain 2000, cleared for the ILS 16 Hawkins
Me 43L descend 2000, cleared ILS 16 Hawkins

Now, here I am 4 miles outside Brenz, not only do I have to get the plane
slowed down to 90 knots for a "standard" approach, but also descend rather
rapidly to intercept the glide slope.

This I would call a slam dunk, an approach that requires more then a 500
fpm descent OUTSIDE the final approach fix.

Allen

[Robert M. Gary]

But at that point you don't care about the GS. Just go down to 2000
feet. I think the original poster was suggesting being cleared for the
approach high and past the GS intercept.

-Robert

[A Lieberman]

On 2 May 2006 13:06:09 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

> But at that point you don't care about the GS. Just go down to 2000
> feet. I think the original poster was suggesting being cleared for the
> approach high and past the GS intercept.

Bear with me Robert on this one, as I really consider myself a newbie when
it comes to IFR!

Can you be cleared for the approach INSIDE the final approach fix, which
would be the GS intercept point.

Wouldn't you have to be cleared for the approach before the final approach
fix?

If the original poster was approach and above the glide slope intercept
altitude, I was always told, that is a no no since you would get a "false
glide slope" read?

Allen

[Roy Smith]

A Lieberman > wrote:
> Can you be cleared for the approach INSIDE the final approach fix

No!

[M]

The clearance came well outside the approach fix, but at an altitude
below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP. It's also below the GS
altitude at the marker. The problem with this clearance is there's no
way I can verify my altimeter as I cross the marker. Normally on
during an ILS approach, we're suppose to check the altitude on the GS
as we cross the marker, and make sure it agrees with the GS altitude
over the marker printed on the IAP. This is an important crosscheck of
the altimeter settings.

[A Lieberman]

On 2 May 2006 15:43:26 -0700, M wrote:

> The clearance came well outside the approach fix, but at an altitude
> below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP. It's also below the GS
> altitude at the marker. The problem with this clearance is there's no
> way I can verify my altimeter as I cross the marker. Normally on
> during an ILS approach, we're suppose to check the altitude on the GS
> as we cross the marker, and make sure it agrees with the GS altitude
> over the marker printed on the IAP. This is an important crosscheck of
> the altimeter settings.

Makes perfect sense M. on what you said.

I jump in this thread regarding a "slam dunk" which Robert referred to and
questioned his definition of a slam dunk, which to me is not what you are
describing above. C my original posting regarding slam dunk and my
thoughts of the definition.

Allen

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/02/06 15:43, M wrote:
> The clearance came well outside the approach fix, but at an altitude
> below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP. It's also below the GS
> altitude at the marker. The problem with this clearance is there's no
> way I can verify my altimeter as I cross the marker. Normally on
> during an ILS approach, we're suppose to check the altitude on the GS
> as we cross the marker, and make sure it agrees with the GS altitude
> over the marker printed on the IAP. This is an important crosscheck of
> the altimeter settings.
>

Well, once you were cleared for the approach and established on the
initial approach segment, you can fly the altitudes published for
the approach - so couldn't you have climbed to 2100'?


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

[M]

I guess. That would be a very odd way of flying an ILS.

Mark Hansen wrote:
>
> Well, once you were cleared for the approach and established on the
> initial approach segment, you can fly the altitudes published for
> the approach - so couldn't you have climbed to 2100'?
>

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC. Does
>>it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?
>
>
> In my experience, when you get a slam dunk approach they don't clear
> you for the approach but just tell you 'intercept the loc, decend
> maintain 1,500". Once you are below the GS they clear you for the
> approach.
>
> -Robert
>

My experience has been different than your's.

[KP]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is it common for the approach controller to vector for an ILS at an
> altitude below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP? Today is the
> third time in the last year or so that Victoria terminal vectored me
> for the ILS into BLI at 2000 feet, instead of 2100. I'm very familiar
> with the area and I did not bother to question them.
>
> The Canadian controllers provide approach service for Bellingham
> probably from an agreement between FAA and NavCanada. Maybe the rules
> are somewhat different in Canada, or they just don't have the right
> information on this approach?
>
> See http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0604/00045I16.PDF

As has already been pointed out, FAAO 7110.65 5-9-1b requires US controllers
to vector "For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart."

So...

What was your assigned altitude prior to receiving the approach clearance?
Above 2100 or level at 2000?

If above 2100, what was the wording of the actual approach clearance? Any
"at or above" or other wording that would allow you to adjust your descent
to intercept the GS at the "altitude specified on the approach chart" rather
than level at 2000?

It could also be as simple as the MVA in that area is 2000 and the
controllers simply assign the round thousands MVA as a routine. They either
don't know or don't care (given the allowable error in altimeters and Mode
C) that they are supposed to add that extra 100ft for ILS approaches.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:zI15g.174918$bm6.107215@fed1read04...
>
> Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC.
>

It means ya gotta do it.


>
> Does it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?
>

Secret dictionary?

[Ted]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> news:zI15g.174918$bm6.107215@fed1read04...
>>
>> Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC.
>>
>
> It means ya gotta do it.
>
>
>>
>> Does it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?
>>
>
> Secret dictionary?

I'm afraid, Samo, you will have to show us where "slam dunk" is used by the
FAA in any of their publications.

[Ronnie]

Here is a common occurance at TPL, Temple, TX which I use
as a way of teaching students how to stay ahead of ATC:

We are VFR doing practice approaches and being vectored
for an ILS to RWY 15. Usually this results in being vectored
to the west side of the airport and told to maintain 3000'. At
about 8 miles out, the final clearance goes something like this:

"Cessna xyxxz, you are 5 miles from the outer marker, turn right
heading 120 to intercept the localizer, maintin 3000 until established,
cleared for the ILS approach to runway 15 Temple."

Normally, by the time the localizer needle comes off the peg,
we have already flown trhough the glideslope and are well above
the glide slope at this point. The MVA in that area (according to
one controller) is 2600', but they routinely keep you at 3000' usless
you ask for lower. The glide slope intercept altitude is 1700'.

I tell my students to expect this, but the first couple of times it happens
to
them they always seem to get behind, don't ask for lower and/or end up
failing to decend soon enough to recover. Makes for a nice game of
catch-up as they try to get back on the glide slope. After a couple of
times, they wise up and either ask for lower before being given the
approach clearance, or they are spring loaded and ready to descend
once the localizer needle gets within 3/4 scale deflection.

Ronnie

"KP" <nospam@please> wrote in message
...
> "M" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Is it common for the approach controller to vector for an ILS at an
>> altitude below the GS intercept altitude on the IAP? Today is the
>> third time in the last year or so that Victoria terminal vectored me
>> for the ILS into BLI at 2000 feet, instead of 2100. I'm very familiar
>> with the area and I did not bother to question them.
>>
>> The Canadian controllers provide approach service for Bellingham
>> probably from an agreement between FAA and NavCanada. Maybe the rules
>> are somewhat different in Canada, or they just don't have the right
>> information on this approach?
>>
>> See http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0604/00045I16.PDF
>
> As has already been pointed out, FAAO 7110.65 5-9-1b requires US
> controllers to vector "For a precision approach, at an altitude not above
> the glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept
> altitude specified on the approach procedure chart."
>
> So...
>
> What was your assigned altitude prior to receiving the approach clearance?
> Above 2100 or level at 2000?
>
> If above 2100, what was the wording of the actual approach clearance? Any
> "at or above" or other wording that would allow you to adjust your descent
> to intercept the GS at the "altitude specified on the approach chart"
> rather than level at 2000?
>
> It could also be as simple as the MVA in that area is 2000 and the
> controllers simply assign the round thousands MVA as a routine. They
> either don't know or don't care (given the allowable error in altimeters
> and Mode C) that they are supposed to add that extra 100ft for ILS
> approaches.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ronnie" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Here is a common occurance at TPL, Temple, TX which I use
> as a way of teaching students how to stay ahead of ATC:
>
> We are VFR doing practice approaches and being vectored
> for an ILS to RWY 15. Usually this results in being vectored
> to the west side of the airport and told to maintain 3000'. At
> about 8 miles out, the final clearance goes something like this:
>
> "Cessna xyxxz, you are 5 miles from the outer marker, turn right
> heading 120 to intercept the localizer, maintin 3000 until established,
> cleared for the ILS approach to runway 15 Temple."
>
> Normally, by the time the localizer needle comes off the peg,
> we have already flown trhough the glideslope and are well above
> the glide slope at this point. The MVA in that area (according to
> one controller) is 2600', but they routinely keep you at 3000' usless
> you ask for lower. The glide slope intercept altitude is 1700'.
>
> I tell my students to expect this, but the first couple of times it
> happens to
> them they always seem to get behind, don't ask for lower and/or end up
> failing to decend soon enough to recover. Makes for a nice game of
> catch-up as they try to get back on the glide slope. After a couple of
> times, they wise up and either ask for lower before being given the
> approach clearance, or they are spring loaded and ready to descend
> once the localizer needle gets within 3/4 scale deflection.
>

Have you ever asked them why they assign altitudes to VFR aircraft?

[Wizard of Draws]

On 5/19/06 8:00 PM, in article
t, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
> "Ronnie" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> Here is a common occurance at TPL, Temple, TX which I use
>> as a way of teaching students how to stay ahead of ATC:
>>
>> We are VFR doing practice approaches and being vectored
>> for an ILS to RWY 15. Usually this results in being vectored
>> to the west side of the airport and told to maintain 3000'. At
>> about 8 miles out, the final clearance goes something like this:
>>
>> "Cessna xyxxz, you are 5 miles from the outer marker, turn right
>> heading 120 to intercept the localizer, maintin 3000 until established,
>> cleared for the ILS approach to runway 15 Temple."
>>
>> Normally, by the time the localizer needle comes off the peg,
>> we have already flown trhough the glideslope and are well above
>> the glide slope at this point. The MVA in that area (according to
>> one controller) is 2600', but they routinely keep you at 3000' usless
>> you ask for lower. The glide slope intercept altitude is 1700'.
>>
>> I tell my students to expect this, but the first couple of times it
>> happens to
>> them they always seem to get behind, don't ask for lower and/or end up
>> failing to decend soon enough to recover. Makes for a nice game of
>> catch-up as they try to get back on the glide slope. After a couple of
>> times, they wise up and either ask for lower before being given the
>> approach clearance, or they are spring loaded and ready to descend
>> once the localizer needle gets within 3/4 scale deflection.
>>
>
> Have you ever asked them why they assign altitudes to VFR aircraft?
>
>
I assumed that they are in VFR conditions but on an IFR plan.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Ronnie]

No, I have not asked, but I think it is because of tihs.

This facility is Gray Approach, an army ATC
facility that handles Gray Army Airfield and other military
airfiields associated with Forth Hood. In general, the controlers
treat all traffic, inlcuding VFR trafic, like IFR traffic unless you
continue to remind them that you are VFR. I usually don't bother
because I'm interested in letting my instrument students experience
the IFR handling, even if we are VFR.

Ronnie

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ronnie" > wrote in message
> . com...
>>
>> Here is a common occurance at TPL, Temple, TX which I use
>> as a way of teaching students how to stay ahead of ATC:
>>
>> We are VFR doing practice approaches and being vectored
>> for an ILS to RWY 15. Usually this results in being vectored
>> to the west side of the airport and told to maintain 3000'. At
>> about 8 miles out, the final clearance goes something like this:
>>
>> "Cessna xyxxz, you are 5 miles from the outer marker, turn right
>> heading 120 to intercept the localizer, maintin 3000 until established,
>> cleared for the ILS approach to runway 15 Temple."
>>
>> Normally, by the time the localizer needle comes off the peg,
>> we have already flown trhough the glideslope and are well above
>> the glide slope at this point. The MVA in that area (according to
>> one controller) is 2600', but they routinely keep you at 3000' usless
>> you ask for lower. The glide slope intercept altitude is 1700'.
>>
>> I tell my students to expect this, but the first couple of times it
>> happens to
>> them they always seem to get behind, don't ask for lower and/or end up
>> failing to decend soon enough to recover. Makes for a nice game of
>> catch-up as they try to get back on the glide slope. After a couple of
>> times, they wise up and either ask for lower before being given the
>> approach clearance, or they are spring loaded and ready to descend
>> once the localizer needle gets within 3/4 scale deflection.
>>
>
> Have you ever asked them why they assign altitudes to VFR aircraft?
>

[Tim Auckland]

Probably not relevant at TPL, but are controllers allowed (or
required?) to assign altitiudes to VFR aircraft in Class B?

(I'd always assumed "yes" without giving it much thought.)


I often get vectors for practice BJC ILS29R approaches while VFR.
The vectors take me into DEN Class B. I'm invariably given altitudes
as well as headings, which I appreciate as I'm trying to practice IFR
proceures.

Tim.

On Sat, 20 May 2006 00:00:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>Have you ever asked them why they assign altitudes to VFR aircraft?
>

[Robert Chambers]

If you're in the Bravo airspace they WILL assign you an altitude or
expect that you keep the one you are on. I've been assigned "wrong way"
VFR altitudes while in the Bravo airspace to fit in with their plans.
Once you exit the Bravo you are expected to fly proper VFR altitudes for
your direction.

Tim Auckland wrote:
> Probably not relevant at TPL, but are controllers allowed (or
> required?) to assign altitiudes to VFR aircraft in Class B?
>
> (I'd always assumed "yes" without giving it much thought.)
>
>
> I often get vectors for practice BJC ILS29R approaches while VFR.
> The vectors take me into DEN Class B. I'm invariably given altitudes
> as well as headings, which I appreciate as I'm trying to practice IFR
> proceures.
>
> Tim.
>
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 00:00:23 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Have you ever asked them why they assign altitudes to VFR aircraft?
>>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tim Auckland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Probably not relevant at TPL, but are controllers allowed (or
> required?) to assign altitiudes to VFR aircraft in Class B?
>
> (I'd always assumed "yes" without giving it much thought.)
>
>
> I often get vectors for practice BJC ILS29R approaches while VFR.
> The vectors take me into DEN Class B. I'm invariably given altitudes
> as well as headings, which I appreciate as I'm trying to practice IFR
> proceures.
>

ATC can assign altitudes to VFR aircraft wherever separation is provided to
VFR aircraft; Class B airspace, Class C airspace and the associated outer
area, and TRSAs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> If you're in the Bravo airspace they WILL assign you an altitude or expect
> that you keep the one you are on. I've been assigned "wrong way" VFR
> altitudes while in the Bravo airspace to fit in with their plans. Once you
> exit the Bravo you are expected to fly proper VFR altitudes for your
> direction.
>

Once you exit Class B airspace ATC is supposed to tell you to resume
altitudes appropriate for the direction of flight.