Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 05:50:34 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  ILS / LOC Approaches
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Down Print
Author Topic: ILS / LOC Approaches  (Read 23659 times)
Unbeliever
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2008, 06:59:30 PM »


Since you brought it up, JO 7110.65S ยง5-9-1 absolutely does concern what altitude ATC may assign an aircraft when vectoring ato intercept the final approach course

By the way, we've been violently agreeing on .65 and ATC's requirements. I was just nit-picking about using .65 to justify Pilot behavior.  I'm just spending my time looking through Government sources on what the Pilot should do.  This weekend I'm probably hitting the ACs.

In praticality, unless you're a good math whiz in the cockpit while flying, and know the surrounding terrain/airspace.  It's best to follow the profile as charted.  The aforementioned LAX ILS 25s have produced many violations for pilots following the GS too far out.  Especially on hot days where true altitude is higher than indicated altitude.  The GS doesn't move, but Ontario's traffic was closer to the GS as their true altitude was higher on a hot day and caused separation issues. (which was the LAX traffic's fault, not the Ontario traffic's fault)

I'm of the opinion that if I make a statement, I've got to back it up.... which is why I'm still looking. *grin*


--Carlos V.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 07:02:19 PM by Unbeliever » Logged
mk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94



« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2008, 10:51:00 PM »

unbeliever,

The IAF doesn't need to be located on the LOC.  we have one at BWI ILS 10...it's offset at least 20 degs.  still, you will get the clearence to cross DATED at or above 2500', cleared ils 10 app.  it's the pilot's perogative to track inbound to COLUM and join the LOC.  I don't see how this relates to the original topic of FAFs...because regardless of where the IAF is or where you join an approach, the FAF on an ILS is the point at where the aircraft intercepts the glideslope.   on the ILS10 at BWI if you were cleared over DATED, you would intercept the GS at COLUM at 2500'.  if i vector you to final you will get a descent to 2000' and then the FAF would be between COLUM and JEANS. 
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2008, 11:27:55 AM »

I'm of the opinion that if I make a statement, I've got to back it up.... which is why I'm still looking. *grin*

Carlos, any more information on this?  I am curious what official source states that one must descend before intercepting the GSIA at the published point, too, since I don't recall ever running across this throughout training or in the real IFR world. 

As stated, I do this now but I don't recall a published regulation/Instrument manual requirement to do so.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Unbeliever
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2008, 12:05:59 PM »

Haven't found it amongst government publications, just amongst training manuals.  Though I haven't spent as much time on it as I wanted.

I'm thinking of putting the question on AOPA's board.  I'm sure Capt. Ron would have an opinion and a source. *grin*

--Carlos V.
Logged
Unbeliever
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2008, 01:31:43 PM »

Still looking for something stronger.  91.175 (a) says you must use a SIAP, and the chart itself is a graphical description of the SIAP, which is part of Part 97, itself regulatory.  The chart says "This is where you intercept the glideslope"

Other than common sense, I'm still looking for a stronger statement of "don't fly the GS until the charted  point."

--Carlos V.

ETA: Hmmm. a blow to me.  AC120-29A uses the phrase "published minimum GSIA" which suggests by inference contrary to my position.  Still looking.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 01:42:38 PM by Unbeliever » Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2008, 03:26:19 PM »

Still looking for something stronger.  91.175 (a) says you must use a SIAP, and the chart itself is a graphical description of the SIAP, which is part of Part 97, itself regulatory.  The chart says "This is where you intercept the glideslope"

Other than common sense, I'm still looking for a stronger statement of "don't fly the GS until the charted  point."

--Carlos V.

ETA: Hmmm. a blow to me.  AC120-29A uses the phrase "published minimum GSIA" which suggests by inference contrary to my position.  Still looking.

The chart indicates the minimum altitude for glideslope intercept, not the only altitude.  There is no regulation that prohibits use of the glideslope prior to the charted PFAF, since the usable distance of the signal from the antenna is often greater than the distance from the PFAF to the TDZ.  I don't really follow your suggestion that your statement is common sense; thousands of commercial pilots seem to believe otherwise.

I'm all ears for what Ron says, I have a lot of respect for his well supported opinions and interpretations.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!