What happened on this ILS approach?

[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 =----