Vector Above G/S Intercept

ARFlyer

ARFlyer

En-Route
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
3,180
Location
Central AR
Display Name
Display name:
ARFlyer
Tonight I had a strange clearance that put us 1000' feet high over the FAF.

ATC cleared us for the approach and told us to maintain 3000' until the FAF, which is 1000' above G/S intercept. Upon reaching the FAF we had to perform a decent of at least 1500' per min and didn't capture the glide slope until DH.

Is this a ATC screw up that should be brought up with the manager?
 
Were you in IMC, on an IFR plan, or were you flying VFR?

If the former, did you consider declining the clearance and saying unable, or just going missed? If the GS indicator was maxed out, I think you are supposed to go missed right then, aren't you?

If the latter, does it really matter?
 
IFR and we were visual the whole time. Broke through a very light cloud deck.

I thought it was extremely odd but didn't question it, which looking back was my mistake.
 
NoHeat said:
If the GS indicator was maxed out, I think you are supposed to go missed right then, aren't you?
Click to expand...

I'm looking that up right now. I know if your below its go around and lateral its go around, but I don't know about being to high.

It does fall under the unstablized approach criteria.
 
I've never heard a controller dictate an altitude once cleared and established on the approach. I thought that was illegal?

I sometimes fly them high like the OP did for icing concerns, but I always tell ATC what I'm doing.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I've never heard a controller dictate an altitude once cleared and established on the approach. I thought that was illegal?

I sometimes fly them high like the OP did for icing concerns, but I always tell ATC what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

We where cleared direct to the FAF on a dog leg and told to maintain 3000 until established.
 
You might want to ask the controller for a let down to g/ s altitude. The controller might have thought everyone was getting in visual.
 
frfly172 said:
You might want to ask the controller for a let down to g/ s altitude. The controller might have thought everyone was getting in visual.
Click to expand...

Well the airfield was flirting IFR/VFR during the approach. Plus it was into a uncontrolled field.
 
ARFlyer said:
We where cleared direct to the FAF on a dog leg and told to maintain 3000 until established.
Click to expand...
If you were cleared direct instead of vectored to the final approach course then I'm guessing you were cleared to the IAF (which might well be the same location as the FAF) and expected to fly the procedure turn?
 
ARFlyer said:
We where cleared direct to the FAF on a dog leg and told to maintain 3000 until established.
Click to expand...
Were you actually cleared direct to the FAF or were you being given vectors to final which caused you to intercept final at the FAF?
 
Everskyward said:
Were you actually cleared direct to the FAF or were you being given vectors to final which caused you to intercept final at the FAF?
Click to expand...

Well think back upon it now I think he expected a full ILS procedure. Because, we never received the "XXX from FAF" call. It was a cleared direct to IAF/FAF even with it being a dog leg towards being on course.
 
I almost thought I was going to be in that similar situation a couple weeks ago. I was being vectored for an ILS, 2000' high at 5000' and getting really close to the GS. I asked ATC politely "Any chance I can get lower for the intercept?" -- response, "sure thing, descend and maintain 3000 until established.. etc.. etc.".

In my case I was in IMC. Had me thinking what may have happened or what I would have done. I was thinking at the time I would have asked to be vectored back around, rather than going missed. Is there an official protocol for this stuff?
 
ARFlyer said:
Well think back upon it now I think he expected a full ILS procedure. Because, we never received the "XXX from FAF" call. It was a cleared direct to IAF/FAF even with it being a dog leg towards being on course.
Click to expand...
Yes I think he expected you to fly the full procedure :)
 
Sounds definitely like a controller screw up that you should have rejected, unless there was something you misinterpreted in his clearance that made you stay higher than you otherwise should have.

Was the "dog leg" part of the published approach? If so, what altitude is published for the dog leg? Maybe you could have let down on that leg if it was part of the published approach.

Jeff
 
Everskyward said:
Were you actually cleared direct to the FAF or were you being given vectors to final which caused you to intercept final at the FAF?
Click to expand...

I thought being cleared direct to the FAF (unless an IAF) on a course other than than final was illegal?
 
ARFlyer said:
Well think back upon it now I think he expected a full ILS procedure. Because, we never received the "XXX from FAF" call. It was a cleared direct to IAF/FAF even with it being a dog leg towards being on course.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you think the controller was expecting you to do the full approach with a procedure turn?
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Sounds definitely like a controller screw up that you should have rejected, unless there was something you misinterpreted in his clearance that made you stay higher than you otherwise should have.

Was the "dog leg" part of the published approach? If so, what altitude is published for the dog leg? Maybe you could have let down on that leg if it was part of the published approach.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Nope the dog leg was a result of our course to the IAF. We hit the IAF at about an 70-80* angle to the inbound course.

peerlesscowboy said:
Yes I think he expected you to fly the full procedure :)
Click to expand...

I wish they would be more forth right. State "cleared for the full procedure"?!?

Hitting my head against the wall right now.
 
Last edited:
If the controller was vectoring you then yeah, that would be bad. If they gave you direct the FAF then I'd say you should have done a course reversal.
 
If the controller was watching that on radar I'll bet he had to pop a couple of tranquilizers after you landed :eek:
 
Alexb2000 said:
So was you clearance something like, "N1234 direct (FAF/IAF) maintain 3,000 until established cleared to fly approach X"?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what the radio call stated

"N1234, cleared direct POINT at 3000'"

*few minutes pass*

"N1234, cleared for the ILS XX, maintain 3000' until POINT"
 
was it maintain xxxx until established? then shouldnt you descend to g/s intercept altitude when estsblished on the localizer?? someone mentioned course reversal, but I am guessing you were coming on a direct entry??
 
ARFlyer said:
Yes, this is what the radio call stated

"N1234, cleared direct POINT at 3000'"

*few minutes pass*

"N1234, cleared for the ILS XX, maintain 3000' until POINT"
Click to expand...

You haven't mentioned which approach specifically, but it sounds like you were supposed to fly the full procedure to me also.

No bent tin, S happens
 
cirrusmx said:
then shouldnt you descend to g/s intercept altitude when estsblished on the localizer?? someone mentioned course reversal, but I am guessing you were coming on a direct entry??
Click to expand...

The IAF is also the FAF lightning bolt. So I couldn't descend to intercept altitude until past the IAF.

So looking back this should have been a turn outbound for the full procedure, like the others have said.

I hate when I have massive brain farts....
 
Massive brain farts can kill... And did I read that your intercept to the fix (IAF/FAF) was 70-80 degrees off the inbound course? That too should have been a clue, isn't the max intercept 30 degrees to the inbound course outside the FAF?
 
I have had this happen twice, both times I was right seat. Once was at Love years ago and another time at Santa Fe. Both times the controller was hopping busy and cleared us for the approach way above the g/s, late in the game. There was a brief moment of cockpit consternation until we decided to go missed. The second time we were so high the screen was flashing red X's at us and instead of trying the ILS again, thinking our equipment might be defective, I asked for RVs to an RNAV approach.
I watch altitudes and distance from intercept more closely now so I can anticipate such an event & possibly react better now. I wish there was a good way to tell distance or time til intercept but I think the best you can do is 'two-finger' Foreflight on the ipad or eyeball it.
 
it sounds like you arrived expecting vtf, then ignored the mounting evidence that it wasn't happening.
 
Stuff like this happens on occasion out in the real world. These are the times that your situational awareness and knowledge of aircraft performance capabilities and personal proficiency come into play. For the record, when you're being vectored to the final approach course, I wouldn't arbitrarily decide to fly the full procedure without letting the controller in on your plans - in advance. In our recurrent sim training, we always seem to get at least one of these each time we go back. The key thing to remember (and hold inviolate) is the concept of a stabilized approach. At some point you're going to have to be fully configured, on speed and on profile. The sooner you can make that happen the better off you are. That's where your knowledge of aircraft performance capabilities and your proficiency come into play. If you find yourself unable to get yourself properly stabilized or outside your comfort zone let ATC know and they'll break you out and put you back to the end of the line.
 
Something tells me the controller was surprised but impressed that you did the straight-in approach instead of the full procedure.
 
ARFlyer said:
The IAF is also the FAF lightning bolt. So I couldn't descend to intercept altitude until past the IAF.

So looking back this should have been a turn outbound for the full procedure, like the others have said.

I hate when I have massive brain farts....
Click to expand...


I wish you would give us the approach. It would be nice to see what you did. Based on what I read, it does sound like you didn't fly the procedure turn. Did the controller say anything to you after the approach clearance other than to go to Unicom or to acknowledge your cancellation?

If not, I wonder if he/she would have if the weather was IMC.
 
ARFlyer said:
The IAF is also the FAF lightning bolt. So I couldn't descend to intercept altitude until past the IAF.

So looking back this should have been a turn outbound for the full procedure, like the others have said.

I hate when I have massive brain farts....
Click to expand...
Aaah, no blood? -- no harm :)
I'm sure you're aware tho' that if this would'a been in IMC to minimums it could'a turned out badly.
 
ARFlyer said:
I wish they would be more forth right. State "cleared for the full procedure"?!?
Click to expand...

It might help to think about this the other way around. Think of it as you always have to fly the full procedure UNLESS one of the criteria exists which allows you to fly the straight-in.

AIM 5-4-9. Procedure Turn and Hold-in-lieu of Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight-in approach. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view. For a hold-in-lieu-of-PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded.

NOTE-
The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot must immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Section 91.123).
 
ARFlyer said:
Is this a ATC screw up that should be brought up with the manager?
Click to expand...
If you were operating IFR, yes, they did. From FAA Order 7110.65, Section 5-9-1 on vectors to final:
Except as provided in para 7−4−2, Vectors for Visual
Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the​
final approach course:
...
b. ​
​
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.
Click to expand...
If you were doing it as a practice approach under VFR, you were probably told "Maintain VFR", in which case, absent some other restriction or instruction, altitude was at your discretion.
 
ARFlyer said:
ATC cleared us for the approach and told us to maintain 3000' until the FAF, which is 1000' above G/S intercept.
Click to expand...

ARFlyer said:
We where cleared direct to the FAF on a dog leg and told to maintain 3000 until established.
Click to expand...
That's two different stories, inconsistent with each other, and both of which involve the controller violating provisions of FAA Order 7110.65. As stated above, the controller cannot issue an approach clearance which would involve intercepting the glide path from above. On the second version, the controller is not permitted to clear an aircraft direct to the FAF -- the closest point to which a controller can clear an aircraft direct is a fix at least 3nm outside the FAF.

So, I think it might be worthwhile to check LiveATC and find out what actually was said.
 
ARFlyer said:
Yes, this is what the radio call stated

"N1234, cleared direct POINT at 3000'"

*few minutes pass*

"N1234, cleared for the ILS XX, maintain 3000' until POINT"
Click to expand...
I now gather that there is a course reversal at POINT. Based on what you now say the controller said, you were not getting vectors to final, you were not on an NoPT route, you were not already established in a hold at POINT, and you were not cleared straight-in for the approach. Therefore, you should have maintained 3000 until reaching POINT as the IAF, then begun the course reversal descending as published to the proper g/s intercept altitude approaching POINT as the FAF.

What you should not have done is skip the course reversal and attempt to execute the approach straight in the first time you crossed POINT. That would violate 91.175, since published course reversals are mandatory unless you meet one of the four published exceptions listed above -- and by your telling, you didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top