Vector altitude for ILS below GS intercept altitude?

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

"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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

No!

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.

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