Roy Smith wrote:



The other thing I don't understand is why the controller preferred "direct
FARAN" to "fly heading 200 to intercept the localizer". They both boiled
down to about the same ground track. They both required that he monitor
our progress on radar. The heading to intercept was certainly easier for
us to execute. Was there some advantage to the controller to issue it the
way he did?

Stan is right, this is for RNAV only. I missed the part about the ILS
in your original post.

The likely reason the controller used the procedure for the ILS is
because controllers have a way of bending the rules to suit their
personal perception of things. When the proposal was discussed between
the FAA and industry user groups, some proposed making it okay for all
types of approaches that have intermedite fixes. The FAA wheel in
charge said he did not want to to be used with other than RNAV because,
unless you have RNAV, you can't get there on a ground-based IAP.

Someone else said controllers would do it anyway for all type of IAPs
with /G aircraft. ;-)

In the case of an ILS, they are always video mapped where TRACON has
coverage, and vectors to final are the rule except for the full
approach. But, your controller obviously was lazy.

A radar monitor is a whole lot easier than a vector and sometimes they
don't even monitor the track. In fact, in the case of RNAV IAPs the IF
often is not on the video map so it is a wag on their part in any case.