A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Clear to intercept localizer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 4th 05, 01:48 AM
Mike H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #14  
Old October 4th 05, 08:29 PM
Julian Scarfe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 6th 05, 09:58 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 6th 05, 05:53 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old October 6th 05, 08:06 PM
John R. Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 7th 05, 09:18 AM
David Cartwright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 8th 05, 12:53 PM
Paul Lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:26 AM
Vectored past the localizer Doug Instrument Flight Rules 28 December 30th 03 08:05 PM
ILS Critical Area signage: Localizer or Glideslope? Adam K. Instrument Flight Rules 4 October 30th 03 11:09 PM
Localizer Back Course vs. ILS ilsub Instrument Flight Rules 8 August 25th 03 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.