What should the controller have done?

dwalt

dwalt

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
351
Location
Atlanta
Display Name
Display name:
DWalt
Was flying IFR from PDK-GAD this weekend and was given the ILS 24 at GAD. The plate is attached for reference.

I was still w/ ATL center at roughly 5 miles from the IAF and was cleared direct HUBJU. They hadn't descended me from 6,000 yet. For the last 15 miles or so, I asked twice to descend so that I could make the approach, and the controller said "I can't give it to you...you'll have to request lower from Birmingham approach when I hand you off." I asked if there was traffic, and she just said "No, Birmingham approach will have to descent you." I told her that if I didn't get lower I wouldn't be able to get down in time, and all I got was "You can request lower from Birmingham."

Another 2 miles or so go by and she finally hands me off. I check in with Birmingham and get "2 miles from HUBJU, cleared the ILS 24."

Now, in IMC with <1,000ft ceilings, I had to descend at more than twice the normal rate I'd fly on an ILS since they had me roughly 2,500 feet above the GS. In retrospect, I should've asked to hold or for vectors to go through and come back so I had time to get down. I made it in without having to go around, but it was hairy getting down.

Before I switched to unicom, I told the controller "I don't know why you had me at 6,000 at the IAF, but getting down from there was almost impossible."

The controller responded "Yeah, we were wondering why Center had you so high. There was no traffic. You should've asked for lower." I told the controller that I did twice, and he said "Strange."

Obviously the ATL Center controller screwed something up, but my question is this: What should the Birmingham Approach controller have done? Was it the right call to just clear me for the ILS? Should he have vectored me around to get down? Should he have at least asked if I needed to hold to get down?

Of course, it's ultimately on me to ask for something if I need it, but I'm just curious if you guys think the controller should've done something different.

Ultimately, I wasn't comfortable starting the approach from that altitude in IMC with low ceilings, and I should've done something about it. A good learning experience.
 

Attachments

  • 00897ILD24.PDF
    659.4 KB · Views: 76
dwalt said:
Another 2 miles or so go by and she finally hands me off. I check in with Birmingham and get "2 miles from HUBJU, cleared the ILS 24."

Now, in IMC with <1,000ft ceilings, I had to descend at more than twice the normal rate I'd fly on an ILS since they had me roughly 2,500 feet above the GS. In retrospect, I should've asked to hold or for vectors to go through and come back so I had time to get down. I made it in without having to go around, but it was hairy getting down.
Click to expand...

Above it, but not 2500' above it. At two miles from HUBJU the GS would be about 5470' MSL.
 
You said it all already. The controller isn't flying the aircraft. Tell them what your problems are if you have one. In this case you were rebuffed by one controller so maybe that made you more likely to comply with the second controller. I dunno.
As you noted it's a learning experience but it's one to take to all situations. If we can make things work, great. If we can't make things work, tell'em what ya need or are going to do. After it is over you can call them on the phone to discuss. Make sure you're around to make the call...
 
There are lots of places in the country where you might get slam dunked, some are just due to radar coverage, the approach I often shoot I have about 5 miles to loose 3,300', just part of flying in some places.
 
If you were on a vector, they required to vector you to intercept from below. If you were direct, you can be above but you have to use some common sense in clearing an aircraft that far above.

At 2 miles outside of HUBJU, you were but a few hundred feet above. I show you needed to lose about 3,500 ft in 9 miles to hit the FAF dead on. Not too much out of the ordinary. But I'd say excessive.

Most likely ATL didn't want to get approval and pick up the landline and say "N12345 out of 6,000 for 4,000."
 
Last edited:
"What should the controller have done?"

I'm not sure I understand the question...sounds like they did everything and you made the approach. I really wouldn't even have gone so far as to say that "obviously" the controller should have done something different. If you were uncomfortable, you could've gone missed early. Sometimes the best things to do are not necessarily the easiest.
 
I agree with you on how to keep this from happening. I experience the same issue sometimes when arriving at GAD from the east and I'm ready to tell them we'll do 1 turn in the holding pattern to descend if necessary. In fact, since we are not being vectored, haven't been cleared for the straight-in approach and we're not on a NOPT route, a turn in the holding pattern would be appropriate. Lack of radar coverage by BHM at lower altitudes in the GAD area is a factor with regards to vectors.
 
Also, were you cleared for the straight in ILS 24?

Edit: yeah, like said above, you should have done the HILPT anyway.

I think I sense the "Am I or am I not required to do the HILPT" discussion coming. :D
 
Last edited:
dwalt said:
Was flying IFR from PDK-GAD this weekend and was given the ILS 24 at GAD. The plate is attached for reference.

I was still w/ ATL center at roughly 5 miles from the IAF and was cleared direct HUBJU. They hadn't descended me from 6,000 yet. For the last 15 miles or so, I asked twice to descend so that I could make the approach, and the controller said "I can't give it to you...you'll have to request lower from Birmingham approach when I hand you off." I asked if there was traffic, and she just said "No, Birmingham approach will have to descent you." I told her that if I didn't get lower I wouldn't be able to get down in time, and all I got was "You can request lower from Birmingham."

Another 2 miles or so go by and she finally hands me off. I check in with Birmingham and get "2 miles from HUBJU, cleared the ILS 24."

Now, in IMC with <1,000ft ceilings, I had to descend at more than twice the normal rate I'd fly on an ILS since they had me roughly 2,500 feet above the GS. In retrospect, I should've asked to hold or for vectors to go through and come back so I had time to get down. I made it in without having to go around, but it was hairy getting down.

Before I switched to unicom, I told the controller "I don't know why you had me at 6,000 at the IAF, but getting down from there was almost impossible."

The controller responded "Yeah, we were wondering why Center had you so high. There was no traffic. You should've asked for lower." I told the controller that I did twice, and he said "Strange."

Obviously the ATL Center controller screwed something up, but my question is this: What should the Birmingham Approach controller have done? Was it the right call to just clear me for the ILS? Should he have vectored me around to get down? Should he have at least asked if I needed to hold to get down?

Of course, it's ultimately on me to ask for something if I need it, but I'm just curious if you guys think the controller should've done something different.

Ultimately, I wasn't comfortable starting the approach from that altitude in IMC with low ceilings, and I should've done something about it. A good learning experience.
Click to expand...
A) Welcome to the world of center controllers trying to get people ready for approaches. Multiple points too much for the time I have now. They don't control from actual traffic. It's usually from fake lines on a map.

You did the right thing requesting lower. They didn't give it to you. Outside of canceling or declaring emergency which wasn't a good idea...gotta do what they say.

That said, poor approach controller frustrated with the typical ****y center controlling, should not have just cleared you impossibly above the glide slope. But...if you accept the at or above clearance then it's back on you. I'd say controlling, want me to take you out for a legit approach. Back on you. As a pilot I'd say sorry but nope. Take me out and do your job please. I'd like a legit approach intercepting at or below the glide slope. AKA your job
 
Side note,

Was there a LPV approach available?

If you're going to come DOWN onto glide slope, you'd be best served with a LPV over a ILS.
 
Velocity173 said:
Also, were you cleared for the straight in ILS 24?

Edit: yeah, like said above, you should have done the HILPT anyway.

I think I sense the "Am I or am I not required to do the HILPT" discussion coming. :D
Click to expand...

Let's do it. He was cleared direct HUBJU so he wasn't doing either the EBAZE or MAYES thing, so yeah, supposed to to HILPT.
 
luvflyin said:
Let's do it. He was cleared direct HUBJU so he wasn't doing either the EBAZE or MAYES thing, so yeah, supposed to to HILPT.
Click to expand...

I was given direct HUBJU after center asked me which approach I wanted. It was an "ok you can proceed direct HUBJU then." However, she was vectoring me l before I was handed off to approach. Also, I was given the instruction to maintain 6K till established, cleared ILS yada yada


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dwalt said:
Of course, it's ultimately on me to ask for something if I need it, but I'm just curious if you guys think the controller should've done something different.

Ultimately, I wasn't comfortable starting the approach from that altitude in IMC with low ceilings, and I should've done something about it. A good learning experience.
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question. YOU should have refused the approach and asked for vectors to get down. I'm sure there's a Letter of Agreement between ATL and BHM. All ATL had to do possibly was get approval from BHM if you were in BHM's airspace to descend you lower. Just depends what the agreement between the two facilities is. Sorry it happened.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
You've answered your own question. YOU should have refused the approach and asked for vectors to get down. I'm sure there's a Letter of Agreement between ATL and BHM. All ATL had to do possibly was get approval from BHM if you were in BHM's airspace. Just depends what the agreement between the two facilities is. Sorry it happened.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Live and learn. Would definitely handle it differently next time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dwalt said:
I was given direct HUBJU after center asked me which approach I wanted. It was an "ok you can proceed direct HUBJU then." However, she was vectoring me l before I was handed off to approach. Also, I was given the instruction to maintain 6K till established, cleared ILS yada yada


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Vectors don't count once you were given direct the IAF. Vectors only matter when the vector actually intercepts the FAC. Then, the controller's have specific angles, glidepath, and intercept distances that must be met. You were given direct the IAF. Should've done a lap in the HILPT.
 
"Unable to get down from here, it exceeds my maximum descent rate opspec. Will require alternate descent"
 
Yeah, I didn't look at the plate before I wrote my comment, but agree with everyone that a lap (or two) in the holding pattern would have allowed you time to get down.

self: must look at appr plate before posting :D
 
Coming to DC (KCGS) from New Jersey they left me very high, but told me that was gonna be the case. . .Potomac offered to vector me to loose altitude, but I was in a 172, and said I could chop and drop. Then it was on me. They didn't mention why they had to leave me up there. . .I kinda doubt it was just to mess around; I think sometimes one hand doesn't what the other is doing, IRT ATC.
 
It happens. I try to nudge them if they don't start me down...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dwalt said:
I was given direct HUBJU after center asked me which approach I wanted. It was an "ok you can proceed direct HUBJU then." However, she was vectoring me l before I was handed off to approach. Also, I was given the instruction to maintain 6K till established, cleared ILS yada yada


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ah. Was the last thing you got from Center a "heading," or was it a "heading and join?"
 
roncachamp said:
Above it, but not 2500' above it. At two miles from HUBJU the GS would be about 5470' MSL.
Click to expand...

True but I was at a 30-degree intercept and was cleared
luvflyin said:
Ah. Was the last thing you got from Center a "heading," or was it a "heading and join?"
Click to expand...

Just a heading...I was assigned a heading roughly 20 degrees NW of parallel the inbound. The whole thing was a little unorthodox. Clearing me to the IAF after I told her that's the approach I wanted was, I think, easier for her than assigning a heading maybe?

Obviously I could've (and should've) done several things differently, I just think the whole thing from the ATC side was a little strange too.
 
dwalt said:
True but I was at a 30-degree intercept and was cleared


Just a heading...I was assigned a heading roughly 20 degrees NW of parallel the inbound. The whole thing was a little unorthodox. Clearing me to the IAF after I told her that's the approach I wanted was, I think, easier for her than assigning a heading maybe?

Obviously I could've (and should've) done several things differently, I just think the whole thing from the ATC side was a little strange too.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Who knows what exactly happened. I wouldn't exactly call it ATC's finest hour but things happening differently than what you expect happens all the time.
 
I think it's actually an influx in new controllers at ATL center. I've had some controls who will give me one thing then about the time I key up to repeat another voice comes on and changes what they said.

But I agree with folks saying you should have said unable. It's hard to remember sometimes when you got your hands full you can do that.
 
roncachamp said:
Above it, but not 2500' above it. At two miles from HUBJU the GS would be about 5470' MSL.
Click to expand...
Looking at the profile view on the chart, that doesn't look right. The GS intercept altitude at HUBJU is 3600 msl, and 4.2 nm later at FIKOX, the GS is shown as being only 600 feet lower, so two miles outside HUBJU, the GS should be approximately 3600+300 = 3900 msl. What am I missing?

[Edit: replaced broken link with uploaded PDF]
 

Attachments

  • gad_ils_or_loc_rwy_24.pdf
    292 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
blurceo said:
I think it's actually an influx in new controllers at ATL center. I've had some controls who will give me one thing then about the time I key up to repeat another voice comes on and changes what they said..
Click to expand...

That sounds like a trainee and then the rated controller correcting him. Happens all the time.
 
dwalt said:
Just a heading...I was assigned a heading roughly 20 degrees NW of parallel the inbound. The whole thing was a little unorthodox. Clearing me to the IAF after I told her that's the approach I wanted was, I think, easier for her than assigning a heading maybe?
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Was the instruction you received with your approach clearance to fly "direct HUBJU," or was it a heading assignment, i.e., a vector? If it was "direct "HUBJU," then unless the controller said "straight-in," you should have flown the HILPT, according to AIM 5-4-9a, which would have given you the opportunity to get down to the GS intercept altitude in a reasonable manner. If instead, it was a vector to the final approach course or fix, then you were prohibited from flying the HILPT unless you received permission from ATC. See 91.175(j).
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm confused. Was the instruction you received with your approach clearance to fly "direct HUBJU," or was it a heading assignment, i.e., a vector? If it was "direct "HUBJU," then unless the controller said "straight-in," you should have flown the HILPT, according to AIM 5-4-9a, which would have given you the opportunity to get down to the GS intercept altitude in a reasonable manner. If instead, it was a vector to the final approach course or fix, then you were prohibited from flying the HILPT unless you received permission from ATC. See 91.175(j).
Click to expand...

So, at roughly 25 miles out, the controller asked "What approach would you like at Gadsden?" I replied, "ILS 24." She replied "OK, you can proceed direct to HUBJU for now."

Then at roughly 5 miles out, I was given a north-ish heading (can't remember the exact heading), in the form of "fly heading 0?0, vectors for the ILS 24."
 
dwalt said:
So, at roughly 25 miles out, the controller asked "What approach would you like at Gadsden?" I replied, "ILS 24." She replied "OK, you can proceed direct to HUBJU for now."

Then at roughly 5 miles out, I was given a north-ish heading (can't remember the exact heading), in the form of "fly heading 0?0, vectors for the ILS 24."
Click to expand...
What was the last instruction you received before reaching the final approach course? My understanding is that that's the one that counts as far as determining whether you're required to fly the HILPT or not.
 
And careful coming into a glide slope from above, there are false glide slope errors you can get, hence my comment about a LPV being better for a slam dunk.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm confused. Was the instruction you received with your approach clearance to fly "direct HUBJU," or was it a heading assignment, i.e., a vector? If it was "direct "HUBJU," then unless the controller said "straight-in," you should have flown the HILPT, according to AIM 5-4-9a, which would have given you the opportunity to get down to the GS intercept altitude in a reasonable manner. If instead, it was a vector to the final approach course or fix, then you were prohibited from flying the HILPT unless you received permission from ATC. See 91.175(j).
Click to expand...

Exactamundo!
 
You also have the option to call the supervisor at the center and discuss the matter with him/her. For all you know, the center controller might need retraining and your call could make the difference between this going unnoticed or not.
Or at least the supervisor can explain the reasoning behind the altitude restriction.
 
dwalt said:
So, at roughly 25 miles out, the controller asked "What approach would you like at Gadsden?" I replied, "ILS 24." She replied "OK, you can proceed direct to HUBJU for now."

Then at roughly 5 miles out, I was given a north-ish heading (can't remember the exact heading), in the form of "fly heading 0?0, vectors for the ILS 24."
Click to expand...

There are two problems here. First, your 0?0 vector doesn't intercept the course within a 30 degree maximum. An ATC requirement but since they sent you direct, the vector to intercept rule goes out the window.

Second, the controller didn't vector you to intercept below the glidepath. A requirement for a precision approach. Once again, since you were taken off the vector and told to proceed direct HUBJU, they're off the hook again.

Based on your description, you are direct a IAF that also has a HILPT there. Now, if you are greater than 90 degrees, they can't even clear you for a straight in. It sounds like when you did proceed direct you were 30 degrees. That's fine but they still must clear you for a straight in or you have to do the HILPT. Now, even if you were less than 90, the altitude assigned doesn't comply with a normal descent to the FAF (150-300 feet per NM). Therefore, a straight in shouldn't be offered just based on altitude.

So, based on your description of the incident, you should have and most would say, you are required to do the HILPT prior to proceeding inbound to the FAF. Now, will either BHM or ATL care that this didn't happen? Nope.
 
Velocity173 said:
There are two problems here. First, your 0?0 vector doesn't intercept the course within a 30 degree maximum. An ATC requirement but since they sent you direct, the vector to intercept rule goes out the window.

Second, the controller didn't vector you to intercept below the glidepath. A requirement for a precision approach. Once again, since you were taken off the vector and told to proceed direct HUBJU, they're off the hook again.

Based on your description, you are direct a IAF that also has a HILPT there. Now, if you are greater than 90 degrees, they can't even clear you for a straight in. It sounds like when you did proceed direct you were 30 degrees. That's fine but they still must clear you for a straight in or you have to do the HILPT. Now, even if you were less than 90, the altitude assigned doesn't comply with a normal descent to the FAF (150-300 feet per NM).

So, based on your description of the incident, you should have and most would say, are required to do the HILPT prior to proceeding inbound to the FAF. Now, will either BHM or ATL care that this didn't happen? Nope.
Click to expand...

Sorry, just to be clear, the CTR controller told me to proceed direct HUBJU at roughly 25 miles out. Then turned me on a north-ish heading "vectors for the approach."

Then I was handed off to Birmingham Approach, who gave me two more turns, the last one a 30-degree intercept, at which point I was told to maintain 6k, present heading until established. At that point I was on a vector.

The "direct HUBJU" instruction was BEFORE I was given vectors, not after.

Not trying to argue with anyone, just genuinely want to get others' input on the situation.
 
dwalt said:
Sorry, just to be clear, the CTR controller told me to proceed direct HUBJU at roughly 25 miles out. Then turned me on a north-ish heading "vectors for the approach."

Then I was handed off to Birmingham Approach, who gave me two more turns, the last one a 30-degree intercept, at which point I was told to maintain 6k, present heading until established. At that point I was on a vector.

The "direct HUBJU" instruction was BEFORE I was given vectors, not after.

Not trying to argue with anyone, just genuinely want to get others' input on the situation.
Click to expand...

Ok, well that's a whole different ball game then. Your original post said you were direct HUBJU only 5 miles out, then after the handoff to BHN you got:

Another 2 miles or so go by and she finally hands me off. I check in with Birmingham and get "2 miles from HUBJU, cleared the ILS 24."

That's why it's important to clarify if you were left on a vector to intercept or direct. Two different things when a HILPT is involved.
 
dwalt said:
...Then I was handed off to Birmingham Approach, who gave me two more turns, the last one a 30-degree intercept, at which point I was told to maintain 6k, present heading until established. At that point I was on a vector.

The "direct HUBJU" instruction was BEFORE I was given vectors, not after.

Not trying to argue with anyone, just genuinely want to get others' input on the situation.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. In that circumstance, I would ask for permission to fly the HILPT.
 
Palmpilot said:
Looking at the profile view on the chart, that doesn't look right. The GS intercept altitude at HUBJU is 3600 msl, and 4.2 nm later at FIKOX, the GS is shown as being only 600 feet lower, so two miles outside HUBJU, the GS should be approximately 3600+300 = 3900 msl. What am I missing?

https://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/...y_24.pdf?_ga=1.216077589.207739898.1424218278
Click to expand...

You're missing that the profile view on the FAA charts is not to scale, and regardless of depiction, the altitudes depicted are only on glideslope if they have a lightning bolt or are a glideslope check altitude like the small "2500" above the FAF. 3600 is not glideslope intercept at HUBJU, nor is 3000 at FIKOX. The line preceding the FAF is notional, representative only, and is not to scale or used to indicate anything about the glideslope. It's not the greatest depiction, especially since the glideslope feather extends well up final.

This is clear when you think more about it, though - HUBJU to FIKOX is 600 feet over 4.2 nm, and FIKOX to BLKEY is 500 feet over 2.9 nm. Obviously those are different slopes, and ILS glideslopes don't bend like that. A 3.0 degree glideslope like published here is about 318 feet per nm. So the glideslope altitude at FIKOX is about 2500 + (2.9 x 318) = 3422, and the glideslope at HUBJU is about 3422 + (4.2 x 318) = 4758. In other words, well above the charted altitudes, as is desirable to be able to intercept the glideslope from below.
 
Velocity173 said:
Ok, well that's a whole different ball game then. Your original post said you were direct HUBJU only 5 miles out, then after the handoff to BHN you got:

Another 2 miles or so go by and she finally hands me off. I check in with Birmingham and get "2 miles from HUBJU, cleared the ILS 24."

That's why it's important to clarify if you were left on a vector to intercept or direct. Two different things when a HILPT is involved.
Click to expand...

Ah just re-read that and see what you mean. Sorry for the confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top