Non-IFR pilot instructed to intercept LOC

ArrowFlyer86

ArrowFlyer86

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
1,553
Location
Chicago suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
While flying from Chicago to KSUS (St Louis) with VFR flight following I received an instruction from STL approach telling me to fly direct to the CSX VOR over Lambert (the bravo airport), continue straight on, and then intercept the LOC for rwy 26 at KSUS. As I'm not yet an instrument rated pilot and have only done a few practice approaches I declined and said I needed a visual approach (though I'm pretty sure I could have executed that intercept OK). The controller accepted my response but seemed a little confused, perhaps a little annoyed that I didn't accept that. I heard him vector a couple other planes that way without pushback from pilots.

My question is: could I have technically accepted that instruction as a non-instrument rated private pilot? Or would accepting that instruction be akin to me asserting that I'm an instrument pilot? The weather was unlimited visibility and sky clear, so it's not as if I risked flying into IFR conditions. But my gut tells me that it was the right decision to reject the instruction to be safe either way. Anyways just curious!

Edit: it was intercept localizer not ILS.
 
Last edited:
ILS or "intercept the localizer"? I've heard the latter as a VFR instruction a few times at Class B and C airports, especially with parallel runways. Some instructors teach it because it's a good tool for a lot of straight in situations. If it's something not in your bag of tricks, "unable" is an appropriate response.
 
Last edited:
Tom Wells said:
While flying from Chicago to KSUS (St Louis) with VFR flight following I received an instruction from STL approach telling me to fly direct to the CSX VOR over Lambert (the bravo airport), continue straight on, and then intercept the ILS for rwy 26 at KSUS. As I'm not yet an instrument rated pilot and have only done a few practice approaches I declined and said I needed a visual approach (though I'm pretty sure I could have executed that intercept OK). The controller accepted my response but seemed a little confused, perhaps a little annoyed that I didn't accept that. I heard him vector a couple other planes that way without pushback from pilots.

My question is: could I have technically accepted that instruction as a non-instrument rated private pilot? Or would accepting that instruction be akin to me asserting that I'm an instrument pilot? The weather was unlimited visibility and sky clear, so it's not as if I risked flying into IFR conditions. But my gut tells me that it was the right decision to reject the instruction to be safe either way. Anyways just curious!
Click to expand...
When you declined and said you needed a visual approach, did you say that, "visual approach"? Did he clear you for the "visual approach"? I'm thinking he might have thought you were IFR. Anyway, ain't no law against a VFR plane from using any particular Navaid.
 
Unable is just fine.

That was not an IFR clearance he was offering, it was an electronically enhanced version of "Fly your current heading until you are aligned with runway 26 at St Louis, turn inbound, and land".

The advantage of the electronic or GPS lines was to assure that you did not miss identify the runway. You fly these instructions with one eye out the window, the other keeping the correct needle centered, and confidently turn for the right runway, and do not have to listen for the series of vectors that will be required otherwise.

You correctly declined an instruction you were not certain of flying correctly.
 
Tom Wells said:
While flying from Chicago to KSUS (St Louis) with VFR flight following I received an instruction from STL approach telling me to fly direct to the CSX VOR over Lambert (the bravo airport), continue straight on, and then intercept the ILS for rwy 26 at KSUS. As I'm not yet an instrument rated pilot and have only done a few practice approaches I declined and said I needed a visual approach (though I'm pretty sure I could have executed that intercept OK). The controller accepted my response but seemed a little confused, perhaps a little annoyed that I didn't accept that. I heard him vector a couple other planes that way without pushback from pilots.

My question is: could I have technically accepted that instruction as a non-instrument rated private pilot? Or would accepting that instruction be akin to me asserting that I'm an instrument pilot? The weather was unlimited visibility and sky clear, so it's not as if I risked flying into IFR conditions. But my gut tells me that it was the right decision to reject the instruction to be safe either way. Anyways just curious!
Click to expand...

You are certainly allowed to intercept and track a localizer (or even fly an ILS) as a VFR pilot. However, if you are uncomfortable/confused by the instruction, you should decline and ask for something else (which is exactly what you did).And of course, there is no requirement for you to have equipment to receive it on board.

The controller was probably confused. My response would have been "I'm VFR". In fact, I had the following exchange when approach Class C airport, teaching a student how to do so for the first time:

ATC: "Cessna 123, Direct FOBON"
Me: "We're VFR. We don't know where FOBON is. Can you give us a vector?"
ATC: "Just go direct to the numbers for runway 20."
 
Thanks for your answers, all.

I should clarify my response. I told him "unable" and also said "I'm VFR". It sounds like taking vectors is the safer path and achieves the same thing anywho!

Given that I'm likely to be flying to KSUS a bunch it probably worth giving the facility a call as recommend above and understand their expectations. It seemed like everyone else was taking it just fine. That's a good suggestion @455 Bravo Uniform .

In response to @luvflyin -- I think I did accidentally say "need a visual approach, I'm VFR". Perhaps that specific phrase "visual approach" wasn't the best choice.
 
Last edited:
Tom Wells said:
Thanks for your answers, all.

I should clarify my response. I told him "unable" and also said "I'm VFR".

Given that I'm likely to be flying to KSUS a bunch it probably worth giving the facility a call as recommend above and understand their expectations. It seemed like everyone else was taking it just fine. That's a good suggestion @455 Bravo Uniform .

In response to @luvflyin -- I think I did accidentally say "need a visual approach, I'm VFR". Perhaps that specific phrase "visual approach" wasn't the best choice.
Click to expand...
Well, you included "I'm VFR" in there. Still wondering though, what did he say then? Make a straight in, or sumpin like that? Or did he say 'cleared for the visual.'
 
Last edited:
On my student long XC, I was getting vectored by Approach (I was on flight following) when I intended to land at Bridgeport. I eventually got a clearance for some instrument approach, which is when I finally figured out that there was some misunderstanding. I told the controller I was a student pilot (and not instrument rated)...ATC handled this gracefully and I got clearance to land.
 
luvflyin said:
Well, you included "I'm VFR" in there. Still wondering though, what did he say then? Make a straight in, or sumpin like that? Or did he say 'cleared for the visual.'
Click to expand...

Yeah, he essentially had me continue straight (flying south after overflying the VOR at Lambert field) and then eventually told me when to begin my right turn and head direct to KSUS. Then as soon as I confirmed field in sight he turned me over to tower frequency.

I don't think he said "cleared for the visual". Just steered me towards the airport and then kicked me off his frequency
 
Tom Wells said:
Given that I'm likely to be flying to KSUS a bunch it probably worth giving the facility a call as recommend above and understand their expectations
Click to expand...
...or grab an instructor to discuss the options and how to do them. Chances are you have all the tools you need.

They don't really care specifically about the "localizer" or ILS. All they are really doing is asking you to have some positive course guidance to ensure you are lined up with the correct runway and don't get too close to the other runway. There are many pilots who do this as SOP for every visual approach, VFR or IFR. It helps pick out the runway from the surrounding environment, especially an urban ie. These days, they localizer is not your only option. If you are flying with a panel GPS or EFB, those extended centerlines or straight in functionality will do. I know when I taught this to VFR pilots (when localizer was the only choice), it typically got a "wow."
 
midlifeflyer said:
...or grab an instructor to discuss the options and how to do them. Chances are you have all the tools you need.

They don't really care specifically about the "localizer" or ILS. All they are really doing is asking you to have some positive course guidance to ensure you are lined up with the correct runway and don't get too close to the other runway. There are many pilots who do this as SOP for every visual approach, VFR or IFR. It helps pick out the runway from the surrounding environment, especially an urban ie. These days, they localizer is not your only option. If you are flying with a panel GPS or EFB, those extended centerlines or straight in functionality will do. I know when I taught this to VFR pilots (when localizer was the only choice), it typically got a "wow."
Click to expand...
Didja do the back course thing with them?
 
Tom Wells said:
While flying from Chicago to KSUS (St Louis) with VFR flight following I received an instruction from STL approach telling me to fly direct to the CSX VOR over Lambert (the bravo airport), continue straight on, and then intercept the ILS for rwy 26 at KSUS. As I'm not yet an instrument rated pilot and have only done a few practice approaches I declined and said I needed a visual approach (though I'm pretty sure I could have executed that intercept OK). The controller accepted my response but seemed a little confused, perhaps a little annoyed that I didn't accept that. I heard him vector a couple other planes that way without pushback from pilots.

My question is: could I have technically accepted that instruction as a non-instrument rated private pilot? Or would accepting that instruction be akin to me asserting that I'm an instrument pilot? The weather was unlimited visibility and sky clear, so it's not as if I risked flying into IFR conditions. But my gut tells me that it was the right decision to reject the instruction to be safe either way. Anyways just curious!
Click to expand...

Intercept the localizer is not an IFR clearance, and you don't need an instrument rating to fly it. However, it is a bit odd that the controller asked you to fly an ILS without knowing if you even have a nav radio. What if all you had was just a whiskey compass? Declining was the right thing to do.
 
I am VFR only but at my homedrome I frequently dial in the RWY 27 localizer, intercept it, and fly it to the runway. No particular reason other than to use the nav aid.

Came in handy one time when I was inbound and got caught in a rain squall right after dusk. Visibility went down to VFR minimums, and I was still several miles out. I was coming in from the NE heading 220. I dialed in the localizer for RWY 27, waited for the needle to be 1 dot off center, then turned to a heading of 270.

Shortly after wings level I saw the lights of the runway right off my nose. It was a beautiful sight.

P.S. I also do the same maneuver with the OBS function in my GPS.
 
When coming from the north east to Spirit Direct CSX with a departing radial is very common when flying through the STL Class B. It takes you right over the top of the airport and easily sets up final to spirit when landing west. Otherwise they will happily take you on a long tour around the class B.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Didn't have any nearby.


Come to think of it, I don't think I ever flew one myself until this past year,
Click to expand...
I was reading this, “…If you are flying with a panel GPS or EFB, those extended centerlines or straight in functionality will do. I know when I taught this to VFR pilots (when localizer was the only choice), it typically got a "wow…” as maybe you had them dialing in the Localizer and using it to do that. If so, you can get a Back Course signal even though there isn’t an Approach published for it. Of course you can just use the CDI function on a GPS to get an extended centerline, but it sounded like you were having them actually using the Localizer.
 
Most controllers are not pilots and don't necessarily understand the differences in what an instrument-rated pilot knows and what a non-instrument-rated pilot knows.

"Unable, request vectors" is helpful phraseology. You don't have to explain why you are unable.

That said, an instruction to intercept a localizer is no different from ATC tell you to fly direct to a VOR. Both are electronic navigational aides that can be used by any pilot. If you are comfortable tracking a localizer inbound then it's fine for you to do so. If you VFR charts don't give you quick access to the LOC frequency, just ask the controller for it.

A "visual approach" is an IFR procedure and clearance. When you land visually, you are not doing a "visual approach".
 
luvflyin said:
I was reading this, “…If you are flying with a panel GPS or EFB, those extended centerlines or straight in functionality will do. I know when I taught this to VFR pilots (when localizer was the only choice), it typically got a "wow…” as maybe you had them dialing in the Localizer and using it to do that.
Click to expand...
"(when localizer was the only choice)" referred to a time in the distant past when GPS wasn't available or at least not as widespread. Absolutely today, it would be GPS.

If so, you can get a Back Course signal even though there isn’t an Approach published for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I've flow back courses - they were part of the missed approach off an ILS at a few airports where I was based.

But no, I didn't teach them to VFR pilots - I wanted to give them something helpful, not frustrating :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
"(when localizer was the only choice)" referred to a time in the distant past when GPS wasn't available or at least not as widespread. Absolutely today, it would be GPS.



Yeah. I've flow back courses - they were part of the missed approach off an ILS at a few airports where I was based.

But no, I didn't teach them to VFR pilots - I wanted to give them something helpful, not frustrating :D
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
 
It's not reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to be familiar with a localizer, or where to obtain the frequency. It's not published on VFR sectional/TAC charts. The only way to pull the freq would be from your GPS database, and you'd need to be familiar with how localizers work (similar to tracking a VOR except you don't choose the radial with the OBS, it's fixed), and the course width is narrower. ATC isn't necessarily aware of what VFR pilots are or aren't trained to do. If you're flying into airport where 99% of the traffic is IFR, the nuances of IFR/VFR pilot capabilities eventually gets lost over time, hence, the issuance of instructions which, while legal, are not practical for VFR-only pilots to understand. "Unable, VFR only, unfamiliar with localizer," is perfectly valid. It's the controller's problem, not yours.

If you know the spirit of what they're asking, you can say, "field in sight, we'll join the straight in," that is effectively good enough, assuming your aim is decent. They basically don't want you wandering over a closely spaced parallel rwy.
 
luvflyin said:
I was reading this, “…If you are flying with a panel GPS or EFB, those extended centerlines or straight in functionality will do. I know when I taught this to VFR pilots (when localizer was the only choice), it typically got a "wow…” as maybe you had them dialing in the Localizer and using it to do that. If so, you can get a Back Course signal even though there isn’t an Approach published for it. Of course you can just use the CDI function on a GPS to get an extended centerline, but it sounded like you were having them actually using the Localizer.
Click to expand...

My old crusty curmudgeon CFI had me do a couple of ILS approaches under the hood right before my PPL ride. He said he didn't expect me to be good at it, just to know the tool was there as he said it could save my life someday.
 
Bill said:
My old crusty curmudgeon CFI had me do a couple of ILS approaches under the hood right before my PPL ride. He said he didn't expect me to be good at it, just to know the tool was there as he said it could save my life someday.
Click to expand...
We regularly asked for, and were granted, vectors to the ILS, in CAVU weather, with no instrument ticket. Friendly tower, lots of training, and a bit of ignorance?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
We regularly asked for, and were granted, vectors to the ILS, in CAVU weather, with no instrument ticket. Friendly tower, lots of training, and a bit of ignorance?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the bit of ignorance statement. Nothing ignorant about asking for and being granted practice approaches.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
So? As long as you weren't solo under the hood, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Exactly. My partner to be and I were both doing IR training with the same CFII. When we got to a certain point in our training, our CFII told us to go and fly with each other for 2-3weeks, and then he's wrap us up for the checkride. So that we did, neither of us instrument rated, one safety and the other under the hood. Switch, rinse, repeat.

It turned out to be most excellent training as we were far harder on each other than the CFII had been, and we also developed a friendship that resulted in us forming a partnership and buying the plane.
 
You could have accepted the ATC instruction if able (and convenient) but saying "unable" is just fine as a VFR flight. There can be no expectation that you have the appropriate equipment on board, or the knowledge of the required frequency, to comply with the request. Sure, the localizer frequency is there on your EFB somewhere if you are trained and knowledgeable of where to look for it, but it isn't required knowledge for VFR privileges. ATC doesn't know what equipment you have or don't have, or your ratings.
 
If you want to make a bit of a point as a VFR-only pilot, you can reply, “what is a localizer?” They will get the message.
 
bflynn said:
Unable, not instrument rated. Request vectors.
Click to expand...

There is no regulation that I am aware of that states a PIC has to be instrument rated to track a localizer or ILS in VMC while flying VFR.

As others have stated, if you are uncomfortable with it, not proficient at it, or don't know how...DO NOT accept the instruction. You'd have to let ATC know you are "unable" because that is indeed an ATC instruction, and without declining it, you are expected to follow any instructions given. Without a refusal, they will be expecting you to do as commanded, and they will be managing other aircraft accordingly based on their expectations of what you are suppose to be doing.
 
Last edited:
drgwentzel said:
There is no regulation that I am aware of that states a PIC has to be instrument rated to track a localizer or ILS in VMC while flying VFR.
Click to expand...

but there is a knowledge expectation about a VFR pilot knowing how to “intercept the ILS”, which was the instruction given to the OP. That carries additional expectations related to altitudes and performance that a VFR pilot is not aware of. As others have noted, the frequency for the localizer is also not on a VFR chart, so where is a VFR pilot to get it in flight.

unable is a fine response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top