Vectors to the ILS controller question

Bill

Bill

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
15,263
Location
Southeast Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
OK, twice now, at a local class C, I've gotten bad vectors when asking to fly vectors to final for an ILS practice approach. Both times I knew it was the same approach controller based on gender and voice.

Scenario: They don't seem to be taking me far enough downwind before turning me on a base and then intercept vector. Both times, I intercepted the GS well before the LOC (the last time the LOC was still full deflection for a good minute or so after intercepting the GS), and as we know, we are not supposed to descend on the GS until we are established on the LOC. In real IMC situations, I believe if this happens you're supposed to go missed as trying to intercept the GS from above is difficult and results in an aggressive fpm decent to acquire. In this case, VFR with a safety pilot, I dealt and managed to salvage a good approach. Compounding this was the given intercept vectors were 20* from the LOC where I'm more used to getting a 30* intercept vector.

So, how would you phrase your request? Ask for an extra long downwind? Or should I just not practice vectors to the ILS and do them on my own from an IAF? Although in almost all instances when I'd be returning in real IMC I'd be getting vectors.
 
Just to clarify...Were you inside the FAF when you intercepted the localizer, or were you higher than the GS intercept altitude when you intercepted the glide slope?

also, do you have equipment on board that would allow you to determine that this is going to happen? “Approach, looks like this vector isn’t going to intercept the localizer in time...can we try it again?” has been heard on the radio more than once.
 
Ask for lower and/or ask for an extended downwind. Sometimes ATC gives crappy vectors.
 
Bill said:
OK, twice now, at a local class C, I've gotten bad vectors when asking to fly vectors to final for an ILS practice approach. Both times I knew it was the same approach controller based on gender and voice.

Scenario: They don't seem to be taking me far enough downwind before turning me on a base and then intercept vector. Both times, I intercepted the GS well before the LOC (the last time the LOC was still full deflection for a good minute or so after intercepting the GS), and as we know, we are not supposed to descend on the GS until we are established on the LOC. In real IMC situations, I believe if this happens you're supposed to go missed as trying to intercept the GS from above is difficult and results in an aggressive fpm decent to acquire. In this case, VFR with a safety pilot, I dealt and managed to salvage a good approach. Compounding this was the given intercept vectors were 20* from the LOC where I'm more used to getting a 30* intercept vector.

So, how would you phrase your request? Ask for an extra long downwind? Or should I just not practice vectors to the ILS and do them on my own from an IAF? Although in almost all instances when I'd be returning in real IMC I'd be getting vectors.
Click to expand...

He/she is violating c. below. Probably because of applying a. 1. The rules of angle of intercept are no more than 20 degrees if less than 2 miles outside the Approach Gate otherwise 30 degrees.

APPROACH GATE- An imaginary point used
within ATC as a basis for vectoring aircraft to the
final approach course. The gate will be established
along the final approach course 1 mile from the final
approach fix on the side away from the airport and
will be no closer than 5 miles from the landing
threshold.

5−9−1. VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE
Except as provided in Paragraph 7−4−2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:
a. At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the following exists:
1. When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather is reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but no closer than the approach gate.
2. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no closer than the final approach fix.
EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach.
b. Provide a minimum of 1,000 feet vertical separation between aircraft on opposite base legs unless another form of approved separation is established during turn-on to final approach.
c. 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.
d. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent in accordance with the published procedure.
 
luvflyin said:
He/she is violating c. below. Probably because of applying a. 1. The rules of angle of intercept are no more than 20 degrees if less than 2 miles outside the Approach Gate otherwise 30 degrees.
Click to expand...
We were 3 miles from the FAF when she gave the heading to intercept.

In this instance it was RWY2. Got vectored on a 200 heading for the downwind, followed by 290 for the base and then a 360 heading to intercept. Wouldn’t a 350 heading to intercept be more appropriate? It was definitely tight, but Bill managed to fly it down the pipe.
 
Call the facility and talk to the quality control person. They can pull the audio and radar tapes and see if the appropriate vectors were provided. If not, they will follow up with the controller to correct the problem.
 
The controllers seem to have standard vectors they give at the airports I am most familiar with/have flown the most approaches at. These never change despite environmental variations such as wind, which obviously will affect how much work the pilot has to do to get on the approach.

In the modern times with moving map GPS there should be sufficient opportunity to recognize that the vector the controller gave isn’t going to work. Why not key the mic and propose a heading that will work?
 
I can think of several reasons why a controller may inadvertently/intentionally turn you on a short base. These range from not adjusting properly to the airspeed/winds aloft situation to trying to keep approaches short due to traffic conflicts. You said this is a second experience so it may be a training issue.
 
I'm not totally clear on the scenario. Are you saying the vector provided didn't intercept the localizer before reaching the FAF? It's pretty common especially if it's busy to give you a tight intercept.
 
RyanB said:
We were 3 miles from the FAF when she gave the heading to intercept.

In this instance it was RWY2. Got vectored on a 200 heading for the downwind, followed by 290 for the base and then a 360 heading to intercept. Wouldn’t a 350 heading to intercept be more appropriate? It was definitely tight, but Bill managed to fly it down the pipe.
Click to expand...

The Gate would be 1 mile outside of MORRT. The rule says vector to ‘intercept’ the final approach course 2 miles outside the Gate. Not initiate the vector from a base leg 2 miles out. Hard to say on the heading. The rules also say this, which I left out of the copy and paste above:

NOTE−
The intent is to provide for a track course intercept angle judged by the controller to be no greater than specified by this procedure.

Headings should change, depending on the wind, to get the 20/30 degree intercept. There’s another thing going on with this approach that makes it ripe for a ‘slam dunk’ if the controller isn’t paying attention. The Glideslope intercept, the lightning bolt, is out there farther than usual, looks like at least a mile. Regardless of where the Gate is, they still are still supposed to comply with c. above. Vector you to intercept under the Glideslope
 
Arnold said:
I can think of several reasons why a controller may inadvertently/intentionally turn you on a short base. These range from not adjusting properly to the airspeed/winds aloft situation to trying to keep approaches short due to traffic conflicts. You said this is a second experience so it may be a training issue.
Click to expand...

It also could be that Departures yelled over and said to Arrivals “tighten it up, Tower is still getting departures out.”:devil:
 
Grum.Man said:
I'm not totally clear on the scenario. Are you saying the vector provided didn't intercept the localizer before reaching the FAF?
Click to expand...

The vector didn't intercept the LOC before intercepting the GS. At that point we weren't over the FAF but displaced some distance to the east. As I said above, the LOC CDI was still full deflection at GS intercept.

luvflyin said:
It also could be that Departures yelled over and said to Arrivals “tighten it up, Tower is still getting departures out.”:devil:
Click to expand...

Not hardly. This class C is the sleepiest of C's, and @RyanB , correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone holding short waiting to depart.

Thanks, @luvflyin , I just need to be sure they send me far enough downwind such that the intercept vector intercepts the LOC before the GS.
 
Arnold said:
When you say
Do you mean the G/S centered or that it started to move.
Click to expand...

LOC pegged full deflection. As we continued on the 360* intercept vector the GS came alive, and started coming down from the top. Then center, and then continued down. By the time the LOC was two dots off center and I began my turn to intercept the LOC the GS was pegged full down and had been for a while.

"Officer of the deck, rig the boat for dive..."
 
Bill said:
The vector didn't intercept the LOC before intercepting the GS. At that point we weren't over the FAF but displaced some distance to the east. As I said above, the LOC CDI was still full deflection at GS intercept.



Not hardly. This class C is the sleepiest of C's, and @RyanB , correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone holding short waiting to depart.

Thanks, @luvflyin , I just need to be sure they send me far enough downwind such that the intercept vector intercepts the LOC before the GS.
Click to expand...

If they don’t, just continue and say “your coming in broken approach, say again.” That’ll give you a little more space. Repeat as necessary to get enough space.:ihih:
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
Call the facility and talk to the quality control person. They can pull the audio and radar tapes and see if the appropriate vectors were provided. If not, they will follow up with the controller to correct the problem.
Click to expand...
Bookmarking this into my brain for future need.

In business or personally, I appreciate when someone provides an opportunity to review and improve.

So if my discussion with ATC QA person accomplishes that on both sides of the radar scope, (as in I learn something or I help improve service provided by a controller) we and everyone wins!
 
Bill said:
LOC pegged full deflection. As we continued on the 360* intercept vector the GS came alive, and started coming down from the top. Then center, and then continued down. By the time the LOC was two dots off center and I began my turn to intercept the LOC the GS was pegged full down and had been for a while.

"Officer of the deck, rig the boat for dive..."
Click to expand...

Yeah, been there done that a few times. I've said "does this look like its going to work out?" I've "seen" folks just fix it with a speed change (slower) and minor heading change (10 degrees outbound) knowing that they can make it work. I've also had such a howling wind on the IMC "base turn" with a 30 degree intercept just blow me through the localizer. Not a chance of catching it using standard rate turn. In that case I just asked if they could vector me from the other side.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Bookmarking this into my brain for future need.

In business or personally, I appreciate when someone provides an opportunity to review and improve.

So if my discussion with ATC QA person accomplishes that on both sides of the radar scope, (as in I learn something or I help improve service provided by a controller) we and everyone wins!
Click to expand...

Or the controller gets beat up by the management, a note in their file and their career is hindered. But what do I know I'm just a guy who believes in the Peter Principle.
 
I got one of those fairly recently. It was very obvious the geometry of the intercept just wasn't going to work. I simply told the controller "that's not going to work, can you box us back around", and that's what I got.

Alternately, if it looks like things could work out with a slightly different heading, I've said something like "heading 140 would work better", and gotten that. I can't imagine a situation on vectors to final where the controller's plan is going to be disrupted by 10 or even 20 degree different heading to intercept. Meaning, I can't imagine they'd have any reason to say "no" - because if they do, well then they would have to box you back around anyway, right?
 
Bill said:
LOC pegged full deflection. As we continued on the 360* intercept vector the GS came alive, and started coming down from the top. Then center, and then continued down. By the time the LOC was two dots off center and I began my turn to intercept the LOC the GS was pegged full down and had been for a while.

"Officer of the deck, rig the boat for dive..."
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you are watching to many Jerry videos.
 
Bill said:
The vector didn't intercept the LOC before intercepting the GS. At that point we weren't over the FAF but displaced some distance to the east. As I said above, the LOC CDI was still full deflection at GS intercept.



Not hardly. This class C is the sleepiest of C's, and @RyanB , correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone holding short waiting to depart.

Thanks, @luvflyin , I just need to be sure they send me far enough downwind such that the intercept vector intercepts the LOC before the GS.
Click to expand...

I'm still not following, if you are not past the FAF then you should still be below the GS, unless you are high. If you are intercepting the LOC after the FAF, then I would go missed and tell the guy his vector didn't work let's try again. I called back before and told a controller that a vector wasn't going to work, he answered that he had seen that and was going to call me when I keyed up. Don't be bashful with the controllers, get what you need.
 
PaulS said:
I'm still not following, if you are not past the FAF then you should still be below the GS, unless you are high. If you are intercepting the LOC after the FAF, then I would go missed and tell the guy his vector didn't work let's try again. I called back before and told a controller that a vector wasn't going to work, he answered that he had seen that and was going to call me when I keyed up. Don't be bashful with the controllers, get what you need.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t see how this could happen unless you’re intercepting after the FAF, or crazy high still.
 
I’m not seeing how this can happen either. Did the give you an instruction like “fly heading xxx, maintain at or above xxxx until established, clears the approach” allowing you to descend to the FAF altitude but you elected to stay high? If you were at the FAF altitude prior to the FAF, the GS most definitely should have been above you.
 
It definitely happened, I can attest. The FAF altitude is at or above 2300ft. The controller kept us at 3000ft until giving the approach clearance, didn’t she, @Bill? (Which explains why the GS was below us.)
 
RussR said:
I got one of those fairly recently. It was very obvious the geometry of the intercept just wasn't going to work. I simply told the controller "that's not going to work, can you box us back around", and that's what I got.

Alternately, if it looks like things could work out with a slightly different heading, I've said something like "heading 140 would work better", and gotten that. I can't imagine a situation on vectors to final where the controller's plan is going to be disrupted by 10 or even 20 degree different heading to intercept. Meaning, I can't imagine they'd have any reason to say "no" - because if they do, well then they would have to box you back around anyway, right?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Once they've given you the dogleg turn and the Approach Clearance, they've got their spacing worked out. Not following the dogleg heading exactly not only isn't going to mess that up, it's almost always not going to be even detectable by them. I have acknowledged clearances with "...heading make it ###(not the one they gave), winds pretty strong outta the South, etc." Not because I think the really need to know right now, like I said they won't actually notice it on the scope but to just let them know.
 
Last edited:
RyanB said:
It definitely happened, I can attest. The FAF altitude is at or above 2300ft. The controller kept us at 3000ft until giving the approach clearance, didn’t she, @Bill? (Which explains why the GS was below us.)
Click to expand...

Ah Ha! we have the gender reveal:)
 
My experience is that its unusual to get a quality vector to intercept. The busier the airspace the worse the vector. It's always slam dunk and cram you in where they can, and its up to you to deal with it.
 
Oldmanb777 said:
My experience is that its unusual to get a quality vector to intercept. The busier the airspace the worse the vector. It's always slam dunk and cram you in where they can, and its up to you to deal with it.
Click to expand...

There are some places where I'm pretty sure they stay on top of good vectors to final. That would be where they have parallel runways and are running simultaneous/parallel/close parallel approaches. paging @Radar Contact. Do you guys stay up on what headings are working to give the 'track' needed?
 
Oldmanb777 said:
My experience is that its unusual to get a quality vector to intercept. The busier the airspace the worse the vector. It's always slam dunk and cram you in where they can, and its up to you to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I haven't found it to be unusual. There are certainly airports where the vectors are better than others (including having to intercept the localizer with the glideslope below you), but I think for the most part controllers do a good job. YMMV I suppose.
 
I think most controllers do a great job. Mostly are extremely dedicated and helpful. But they often have to cram a lot into crowded airspace in a hurry.
 
Sluggo63 said:
You're in the last 5 minutes. "Maintain VFR, cleared the approach" was what it sounds like you got.
Click to expand...

This is very possibly what happened. They were only providing you with lateral guidance since it was a practice approach. Managing altitude is your responsibility....you were probably waiting for a descend instruction that never came...so you stayed high. They normally vector you in just outside the FAF. You have to descend on your own when the time is right....usually your instructor helps with that.

So, question for controllers.... I remember way back, even with practice approaches, altitude instructions were given. But, lately, seems the only instruction is: "Maintain VFR." Was there a change in policy and is that standard practice now?
 
Sluggo63 said:
You're in the last 5 minutes. "Maintain VFR, cleared the approach" was what it sounds like you got.
Click to expand...

noahfong said:
This is very possibly what happened. They were only providing you with lateral guidance since it was a practice approach. Managing altitude is your responsibility....you were probably waiting for a descend instruction that never came...so you stayed high. They normally vector you in just outside the FAF. You have to descend on your own when the time is right....usually your instructor helps with that.

So, question for controllers.... I remember way back, even with practice approaches, altitude instructions were given. But, lately, seems the only instruction is: "Maintain VFR." Was there a change in policy and is that standard practice now?
Click to expand...

Now that I think back to mumble years ago when I trained for IR, I believe you're correct. The instruction for the final vector to final used to be something like "Turn right heading 360, descend and maintain 2500 until established, cleared ILS runway 02 approach." Now (recently got my IPC and back into the IR game), the instruction is "Turn right heading 360, maintain VFR, cleared ILS runway 02 approach."

So, back in my training days, the altitude was assigned, now it seems it is altitude at pilots discretion.
 
Bill said:
VFR, doing approaches. Cool, I'll have to listen to it when I have a few minutes, thanks!
Click to expand...

Your request for approach is around 11:50. Turn to 290 around 26:00. It seems there’s probably some stuff missing.
 
luvflyin said:
Your request for approach is around 11:50. Turn to 290 around 26:00. It seems there’s probably some stuff missing.
Click to expand...

I was about 20 north of the airport when I asked for vectors for the ILS. So, that was just it took to get form 20 north to the 1st turn. And, that shows how sleepy our Class C can be at times...
 
Bill said:
Now that I think back to mumble years ago when I trained for IR, I believe you're correct. The instruction for the final vector to final used to be something like "Turn right heading 360, descend and maintain 2500 until established, cleared ILS runway 02 approach." Now (recently got my IPC and back into the IR game), the instruction is "Turn right heading 360, maintain VFR, cleared ILS runway 02 approach."

So, back in my training days, the altitude was assigned, now it seems it is altitude at pilots discretion.
Click to expand...

ATC procedure has not changed. Controllers are misapplying it.

2. Where procedures require application of IFR separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches, IFR separation in accordance with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 must be provided. Controller responsibility for separation begins at the point where the approach clearance becomes effective. Except for super or heavy aircraft, 500 feet vertical separation may be applied between VFR aircraft and between a VFR and an IFR aircraft.

5. All VFR aircraft must be instructed to maintain VFR on initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter.
NOTE−
This advisory is intended to remind the pilot that even though ATC is providing IFR-type instructions, the pilot is responsible for compliance with the applicable parts of the CFR governing VFR flight.
 
Bill said:
I was about 20 north of the airport when I asked for vectors for the ILS. So, that was just it took to get form 20 north to the 1st turn. And, that shows how sleepy our Class C can be at times...
Click to expand...

Did she do anything between then? Give you a downwind vector? Any altitude assignment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top