If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know about other places, but around here I frequently hear:
"Intercept the localizer and track it inbound." This seems to be most frequently used in visual conditions when the controller probably expects to clear the aircraft for a visual approach, but the aircraft is too far from the airport to pick it up visually and is close to the localizer. Mike Pvt/IFR N44979 PA28-181 at KRYY Matt Whiting wrote: Nathan Young wrote: On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " wrote: I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was cleared to decent. I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the glideslope was functioning. Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes shown on the chart. However... It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130 to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9 @ RAL." Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction? This seems less likely, but maybe the clearance was only to intercept the localizer and no approach clearance was given. I can't imagine why a controller would do this, but stranger things have happened. Matt |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Brien K. Meehan wrote: wrote: Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to intercept localizer. No you weren't, you were instructed to intercept the localizer. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was cleared to decent. No, you were instructed to descend and then cleared for the approach. I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? You need to discover the difference between a clearance and an instruction, especially the phraseology ATC uses to issue a clearance. No, you do. Those were all clearance. A change in routing, a change in altitude, those are new clearances. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Nathan Young" wrote in message
... It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130 to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9 @ RAL." In the UK, standard phraseology is an instruction to intercept the localizer and report established. When established, a further instruction to descend with the glideslope is given. A clearance for the approach is never issued. The UK phraseology seems utterly pointless -- as well as very confusing for foreign pilots -- when an altitude restriction can easily be applied instead, as above. Julian |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message
... ATC is required to put you in a position to intercept the glideslope from below. By a strange coincidence, I was reading a recent CHIRP publication this morning, and this very subject came up. The response, if I'm understanding it correctly, is a little concerning - it implies that there are places where a glideslope intercept from above is regarded as normal. The text of the report is reproduced here. ******** Report Text On several occasions at AAA (UK major airport), I have been vectored to the ILS, on both the easterly and westerly runways, such that the aircraft is above the glidepath at localiser intercept. I have discovered that this is not an unknown occurrence; colleagues within my Company and from other airlines have suffered similar problems. I understand that representations have been made to the Duty Supervisor, but the practice continues sporadically. As far as I am aware, no aircraft are equipped to intercept the glidepath automatically from above. My next course of action will be an MOR, but CHIRP might just highlight the issue such that an MOR is unnecessary. CHIRP Comment It is sometimes the case that height restrictions associated with airspace structure or particular traffic conditions can result in intercepting the localiser above the glidepath. Also, the use of Continuous Descent Approaches (CDAs), required by the Department for Transport for environmental reasons at some UK airports, is also considered to be 'best practice' at other locations for the reduction of noise, nuisance and emissions (UKAIP ENR 1-1-3-1 Para 2.3.1 refers). One of the principal objectives of CDAs is for an aircraft to join the glidepath without recourse to level flight. Where the use of CDAs are promulgated in the appropriate AIP AD2 Section, the detailed procedure permits the pilot to descend at a rate he judges will be best suited to the achievement of continuous descent and thus avoid the problem described in this report. However, no standard RTF phraseology currently exists to cover CDA procedures and it is not clear that pilots are always aware when a CDA procedure is being conducted. In view of the important environmental contribution of CDAs; it would be perhaps appropriate to review this particular aspect. If you are positioned significantly above the glidepath at localiser intercept, submit an MOR to permit the reasons to be investigated. ***** Regards, David C |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"David Cartwright" wrote in message ... By a strange coincidence, I was reading a recent CHIRP publication this morning, and this very subject came up. The response, if I'm understanding it correctly, is a little concerning - it implies that there are places where a glideslope intercept from above is regarded as normal. What is CHIRP? In the US, ATC is 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 SIAP. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"David Cartwright" wrote in message =
... =20 =20 As far as I am aware, no aircraft are equipped to intercept the = glidepath=20 automatically from above. =20 David C It strains my FAA-trained imagination even to call that a "glidepath = intercept". |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net... What is CHIRP? In the US, ATC is 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 SIAP. The Confidential Human factors Incident Reporting Programme - a way for UK pilots to report "negative" human factors-induced events that either (a) aren't necessarily formally reportable or (b) they would rather raise anonymously rather than complain to their company, for fear of reprisals. Summaries are produced quarterly, and are seen to be very valuable to the aviation community, and where appropriate the relevant authorities are consulted/informed in order that action may be considered, without compromising confidentiality. Have a look at http://www.chirp.co.uk/. Cheers, D. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I have seen this many times on approaches where ATC is sequencing people or
just for ease of navigation and you intercept the localizer a long way out (greater than 10 NM). Works great. As other posters noted, clearance to intercept the localizer is not clearance for the approach, and certainly not clearance to fly the glideslope. Paul "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Nathan Young wrote: On 2 Oct 2005 17:17:13 -0700, " wrote: I want out to play last week. I requested clearance from EMT to RAL for ILS to rwy 9. Shortly after I was level at 4000, I was cleared to intercept localizer. As I tracked localizer, the glideslope started down and I started down with it. At 3,700, ATC called to ask me to remain 4000. I climbed back to 4000 and about 30 seconds later, was cleared to decent. I did not think about it at the time, but does clear to intercept localizer mean I cannot decent until I am clear to decent? BTW, the glideslope was functioning. Once you have an approach clearance, you can descend to the altitudes shown on the chart. However... It is very common for the controller to give you a vector to the localizer and an altitude restriction until you are established on the localizer. Typically, this would be something like: "N123, fly 130 to intercept localizer, maintain 4000 until established, cleared ILS 9 @ RAL." Perhaps that happened, and you just missed the altitude restriction? This seems less likely, but maybe the clearance was only to intercept the localizer and no approach clearance was given. I can't imagine why a controller would do this, but stranger things have happened. Matt |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Localizer front/back course and reverse sensing | Mark Hansen | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | September 11th 05 04:39 PM |
when does a "remain clear" instruction end? | Arden Prinz | Piloting | 171 | March 2nd 04 12:26 AM |
Vectored past the localizer | Doug | Instrument Flight Rules | 28 | December 30th 03 07:05 PM |
ILS Critical Area signage: Localizer or Glideslope? | Adam K. | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 30th 03 10:09 PM |
Localizer Back Course vs. ILS | ilsub | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 25th 03 04:04 PM |