What happened on this ILS approach?

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

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 =----

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.

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.

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/...s/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 =----

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 =----

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/...s/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
=----

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

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

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.