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

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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


My experience has been different than your's.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:zI15g.174918$bm6.107215@fed1read04...

Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC.


It means ya gotta do it.



Does it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?


Secret dictionary?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:zI15g.174918$bm6.107215@fed1read04...

Hey Steveo, define the word "required" in the context of FAA ATC.


It means ya gotta do it.



Does it appear anywhere near "slam dunk" in your secret dictionary?


Secret dictionary?

I'm afraid, Samo, you will have to show us where "slam dunk" is used by the
FAA in any of their publications.

"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

As has already been pointed out, FAAO 7110.65 5-9-1b requires US controllers
to vector "For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart."

So...

What was your assigned altitude prior to receiving the approach clearance?
Above 2100 or level at 2000?

If above 2100, what was the wording of the actual approach clearance? Any
"at or above" or other wording that would allow you to adjust your descent
to intercept the GS at the "altitude specified on the approach chart" rather
than level at 2000?

It could also be as simple as the MVA in that area is 2000 and the
controllers simply assign the round thousands MVA as a routine. They either
don't know or don't care (given the allowable error in altimeters and Mode
C) that they are supposed to add that extra 100ft for ILS approaches.