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 =----

As soon as you noticed that you were above the glideslope, you should have
so advised the controller and asked to be re-vectored for an intercept
further out. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Take charge.

Bob Gardner

"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
=----

Bob Gardner wrote:

As soon as you noticed that you were above the glideslope, you should have
so advised the controller and asked to be re-vectored for an intercept
further out. This doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Take charge.

I agree with Michael. It happens a whole lot. We used to call them "slam
dunks."

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.

What you are describing is far from rare. Basically, it's a bad vector
- or a vector geared to the convenience of the controller rather than
the pilot. I actually got one similar to what you are describing on my
ATP checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud.
I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS
needle was pegged down as I was cleared before the LOC even came off
the peg). However, because I had minimal workload and was monitoring
my GPS, I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I
adjusted the power/speed accordingly. In other words, I reduced power
and slowed WAY down so I could drop down quickly.

When the clearance came, I reduced power even further, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. I had almost 2000 ft
to lose. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on
airspeed as I crossed the marker. Had I needed time to decide what to
do as I got the clearance, I would still have been fighting it at the
outer marker.

All I can suggest in such a situation is this - slow down so you can
descend at a steeper angle, and start your descent as soon as the LOC
comes off the peg (don't wait for it to center). Or just do what you
did - call the miss and ask for better vectors.

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.

My personal worst was a 110 degree intercept (at my home base EYQ for
NDB). I know how it goes. I was the only one on the approach too.

****ty vectors are part of the game. It's one of the things
professional pilots bitch about - and it's also something they take
pride in being able to handle.

Michael

Michael wrote:

What you are describing is far from rare. Basically, it's a bad vector
- or a vector geared to the convenience of the controller rather than
the pilot. I actually got one similar to what you are describing on my
ATP checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud.
I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS
needle was pegged down as I was cleared before the LOC even came off
the peg). However, because I had minimal workload and was monitoring
my GPS, I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I
adjusted the power/speed accordingly. In other words, I reduced power
and slowed WAY down so I could drop down quickly.

When the clearance came, I reduced power even further, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. I had almost 2000 ft
to lose. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on
airspeed as I crossed the marker. Had I needed time to decide what to
do as I got the clearance, I would still have been fighting it at the
outer marker.

And the examiner was OK with this? I could see them expecting you to
declare a missed at that point. I'm not an ATP so this really is a
question not a criticism. I guess I'd be wondering on a checkride which
course would be best to take.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:

What you are describing is far from rare. Basically, it's a bad vector
- or a vector geared to the convenience of the controller rather than
the pilot. I actually got one similar to what you are describing on my
ATP checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud.
I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS
needle was pegged down as I was cleared before the LOC even came off
the peg). However, because I had minimal workload and was monitoring
my GPS, I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I
adjusted the power/speed accordingly. In other words, I reduced power
and slowed WAY down so I could drop down quickly.

When the clearance came, I reduced power even further, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. I had almost 2000 ft
to lose. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on
airspeed as I crossed the marker. Had I needed time to decide what to
do as I got the clearance, I would still have been fighting it at the
outer marker.

And the examiner was OK with this? I could see them expecting you to
declare a missed at that point. I'm not an ATP so this really is a
question not a criticism. I guess I'd be wondering on a checkride which
course would be best to take.

Matt

Most examiners won't pass you on an ATP checkride unless you can make things
work. If you intercept an approach at 90deg for example, instead of a 90
deg turn outbound and then the proceedure turn, you make a 90 deg from the
FAF and parallel the outbound then make a 180. Making all the turns to
follow the line on the chart will exceeded the protected airspace in a fast
airplane.

Mike
MU-2.

And the examiner was OK with this?

Yes. But what made it OK was that I saw it coming and prepared for it.
I didn't just make it - I had it made. In fact, I was telling him the
vector was going to be bad as it was being set up, and that I was
slowing down so I could dive. There wasn't much explanation necessary
because he knew the score.

I could see them expecting you to declare a missed at that point.

And at the IR level, you would be right. At the ATP level, there's a
difference. You're expected to make things work - no matter what - and
do it without being surprised and without breaking a sweat. Bad
vectors are very much a part of life. At the ATP level, you're
expected to just take them in stride - not declare a miss, hose up the
sequencing, and get sent to the back of the line.

I'm not an ATP so this really is a question not a criticism.

I understand exactly where you're coming from. The obvious implication
is this - isn't this too much workload to take on? Doesn't adding this
kind of dive to a bad intercept make the outcome iffy? And I guess my
answer is - not for someone flying at the ATP skill level. It's just
not an issue.

I guess I'd be wondering on a checkride which course would be best to take.

I don't think so. Not if you trained for your ATP with an actual
practicing ATP. At least after flying a few hours with a Northwest
captain, I didn't have any doubts about the correct course of action in
that situation.

Michael

Michael wrote:

****ty vectors are part of the game. It's one of the things
professional pilots bitch about - and it's also something they take
pride in being able to handle.

Thank you, Michael. It continues to amaze me how little the instrument
training prepared me for the real world of IFR flying. There really is no
substitute for going out and flying in the system a lot.

--
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 had this happen, though not so egregiously, on my IR checkride. The
Arrow can drop like a ruptured duck when asked, so high sink rate, on
the glideslope. The examiner told me that I had violated the PTS
requirement for an ILS maneuver, but she said the fact that I
stabilized on the GS as soon as I got there made it acceptable.

This would actually be a good thing to practice in the training, in
addition to vectors through the localizer.

paul kgyy wrote:

The examiner told me that I had violated the PTS
requirement for an ILS maneuver, but she said the fact that I
stabilized on the GS as soon as I got there made it acceptable.

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.

As the more experienced pilots in this thread pointed out, apparently this
is a viable tactic, but certainly one that develops with experience.

--
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 =----