Why use a let down plate?

[VMC-on-top]

I've done quite a few ILS approaches. Although I obviously had to do an NDB / DME approach procedure for my IMCr test, I've never actually come across a real "live" situation where I have been told to, or requested the procedure.

So, my question is probably very simple and it is, under what circumstances might you OPT to request (or be TOLD to use) the procedure rather than asking for vectors to the ILS? (obviously its the only choice where there is no ILS).

thanks.

[OP amended for clarity!]

[S-Works]

Erm..... If they have a radar failure....

[englishal]

I always use the plate, even if getting vectors.

One situation I have run across is coming back into an airport very late at night (i.e. the airport is kept open for you). The radar controller has probably gone home / having a snooze, so you are told to fly the procedure to intercept the ILS....As the Initial approach fix was overhead the AP then you follow the alts / instructions on the plate, so you might come across the IAF at 3000 and then the procedure tells you to descend to 1600' for example....

[chrisbl]

or if you want to try your hand with the procedure.

[welkyboy]

A few airfields with Approach aids don't have Radar, so how can you be vectored, e.g. Plymouth, Cranfield, Gloster to name a few in the South of UK.
How can you check frequencies, minimas, g/around procedure without a valid chart? I'm amazed that you have admitted your rather questionable "skills"

[IO540]

Nearly all big airports around Europe have ILS and you will get vectors to the localiser, as a standard thing.

However, one finds procedural approaches in some suprising places. I flew into Hania LGSA (Crete) which is full of F16s flying circuits nonstop, radars all over the place, but apparently the civilian controller doesn't have a radar screen (or is not allowed to see it). So you get a procedural VOR approach, and you are told to "report ready to commence the approach" which, never having heard it before, I took as meaning "report beacon outbound" or some such :)

Procedural approaches are easy enough to fly - just do wot da plate sez.

Anyway, missed approaches are procedural even when you were vectored to the localiser. Unless you get vectors after going missed... which is a bonus but you can't rely on it, and the missed approach procedure is likely to take you into a hold so you need to be able to hack that too.

[IO540]

Nobody with a brain would fly a procedural approach if they are offered vectors :)

Why complicate matters for oneself, and for the ATCO who probably has not done a procedural approach in many months.

Otherwise, the main reason to ask for one is for training/practice, but I would still not do that in relatively busy places abroad because the ATCO will have quite possibly slotted you into his arrivals stream on the assumption that you will go straight in.

It's a similar argument to hand flying approaches when one has an autopilot capable of flying an ILS down to 200ft. IMHO one should make full use of cockpit automation, and do one's hand-flying practice in Class G where nobody is watching :)

[A and C]

Quote

Nobody with a brain would fly a procedural approach if they are offered vectors

Once you get south of the Med you think very hard when the offer of "radar vectors" is made, I have found it far better to be totaly in charge of your own destiny.

[Nashers]

agreed... ive heard a few storys about the RADAR "vectors" some people have got in parts of Africa and India.

[Tinstaafl]

I've had times where I chose pilot interpreted because I thought it was more efficient than vectored. I've been in a position to fly directly outbound when approaching from the opposite direction to do an 80/260 procedure turn to get onto final vs. get vectored quite a few miles to the side before finally being turned to intercept final.

[DA-10mm]

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1002/06239NDGA.PDF

here's a good one



definitely would make the right-seater do all the effort and stand outside of the FD door and greet pax as they disembark.

[IO540]

Yes, I have heard stories of pilots having to remain firmly in charge of their obstacle clearance while being vectored at certain more southern countries, with Spain featuring prominently... and I can well believe it. A lot of ATC services are only just hanging in there :)

However, I wonder how many pilots simply abandon situational awareness when vectored? OK, this is easily said in the age of moving-map GPS, and GPS-based GPWS.

But my argument remains, which is that being vectored is much easier.

[BEagle]

One would have thought that vectors to the ILS would be simpler to fly than the full procedure.

But I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness if they are offered diverse vectors to the ILS. Perhaps a symptom of the playstation generation who can follow the approach chart (sorry, I won't stoop to the Americanisation 'plate'..:hmm:) but without a moving map GPS, even with a constant brg/rng readout to the aerodrome provided by GPS (text) and NDB/DME indications they find awareness of their approximate position rather taxing. They are also worse at coping with accurate instrument flying and RT when following vectors... A few years ago RT was simplified for procedural approaches; you probably called beacon outbound and glidepath descending and that was all. Whereas with vectors you have to listen, acknowledge, fly the instruction and keep a mental note of where you are.

Those of us weaned on radar vectors to PAR and other non-procedural approaches had to learn this sixth sense of SA, which took a while to acquire. We perhaps had a (very) minimal navigation fit or even nothing at all. Whereas bumbling to the beacon and flying the familiar friend of the same old NDB/DME to ILS is a probably a lot simpler for some.

[bookworm]

VMC-on-top

One problem is that the question in your post is quite different from the question in the title you chose. There are relatively few reasons for using a procedural approach if a vectored approach is available -- training or testing equipment come to mind. But even if vectors are available, the approach chart is very important. It shows minimum safe altitudes, missed approach procedure, and important notes, all of which are important in a vectored approach.

[frontlefthamster]

IO540,

Being vectored is much easier?

Errm...

Vectors = not sure of track miles (sometimes a hazy estimate from ATC), V/S to have a shot at a CDA, variable quality of intercept angle with LLZ and not sure if we'll be put on the G/S from below or have to intercept from above...

Procedure = LNAV + VNAV, a CDA for sure, and just the right place onto the ILS.

There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.

...and it sounds to me as though, despite his later protestations, the OP doesn't really know what an approach plate is for, or how to use it...

[S-Works]

How can you think that? We are assured that the IMCr is a mini IR and an IMCr pilot is just as safe and knowledgeable as an IR pilot?
:p:p:p:p

[englishal]

There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.
Then you just shoot the Backcourse approach with a circle to land right ;)

But I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness .......... They are also worse at coping with accurate instrument flying and RT when following vectors... A few years ago RT was simplified for procedural approaches; you probably called beacon outbound and glidepath descending and that was all. Whereas with vectors you have to listen, acknowledge, fly the instruction and keep a mental note of where you are.
Not a very persuasive argument for the IMCr there Beagle....

[IO540]

I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness if they are offered diverse vectors to the ILS

Everybody will lose SA eventually, if you give them enough vectors, unless they have a GPS moving map, or are working like crazy doing VOR position fixes and plotting them on the map.

On my FAA IR, the goggles came on at about 50ft and then I got about 10 vectors, and then had to intercept a certain VOR radial. This was a pig of a job and obviously totally unrealistic. It was possible only because the timing was rigged to make it possible.

Almost no modern IFR pilot flies without a GPS moving map today. The Q becomes one asking how many instruments can fail before you tell ATC...

There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.

Track miles means nothing unless you are very very tight on expenditure or fuel. Folloring radar vectors is less pilot workload. You just sit there, watch the GPS map and twiddle the heading bug every so often.

I'd have vectors every time.

The problem is that most (uk) procedural approaches involve flying to the fix and then outbound, then turn back inbound. This system dates back to the goode olde days when men were men, girlz were girlz, and a pilot knew only vaguely where he was, and he had to track to the fix first. Nowadays, with GPS moving maps, one would just do a self-positioned intercept onto the inbound track, directly from the enroute segment - if necessary at a level allocated by ATC to avoid conflict with other traffic. That is how GPS approaches work: you fly to the nearest IAF and head straight in, along the T shape.

[Human Factor]

Aide memoire, if nothing else.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Apart from any legal requirements, common b****y sense and the fact that radio frequencies, MSA, vertical and horizontal profiles, missed approach procedures and numerous other important and relevant information is contained on them, you're right why bother to use approach plates?

And you wonder why the rest of Europe doesn't recognize the UK IMC Rating!?

KR

FOK

[IO540]

Calm down FOK :) You're not an ex RAF navigator by any chance??

Every real pilot I have ever met flies with printed data for the primary airports involved, enroute, etc.

One problem is that one cannot print a plate for every airport one might drop into when the sh*t hits the fan, hence the discussion of electronic means of displaying this stuff.

Another one is that the wonderful printed airways charts are barely usable in the cockpit, due to size and the difficulty of finding countries, never mind anything smaller...

You will also find that there are few if any laws dictating the carriage of stuff in printed format... it is merely prudent to backup stuff which is electronic.

[VMC-on-top]

Calm down FOK

thanks IO540, obviously IMCr / IR a touchy subject to IR holders!?

[IO540]

Only to certain kinds of IR holders...

I have a CPL/IR and still think the IMCR was brilliant. In fact I learnt sod-all doing the IR. Hmmm, let me see, what exactly did I learn on the IR?

1) lost comms procedure

2) the separation between lateral and vertical clearances

Maybe there was something else but I can't remember it.

All the juicy relevant stuff one picks up from other pilots, and the internet.

[Piltdown Man]

Almost no modern IFR pilot flies without a GPS moving map today.

No so. Even the FMSs of larger aircraft fail as to the NDs every now and again. And many don't have the option of simultaneous map & ILS. And another reason for charts - the fall-back or Plan B. As for the presentation of the chart, it doesn't really matter although a well put together electronic map bag would probably be far superior to printed charts. Just so long as it is up to date. When I had a PPL too many people baulked at buying half mil. chart updates or three year old Pooley's Guides. If they carried more than a photocopy of a single approach chart it would be a miracle. But the same people would go out of their way to have an "unofficial letdown" using Capital Radio and a stopwatch.

And if you are licensed to fly in the moo, a few (or even many) vectors shouldn't cause you to lose SA. Because one of the jobs of the charts is to help you with SA and help you orientate yourself. After all, there has been a few people vectored the wrong way for intercepts or even into high ground. No chart, no ground miss.

PM

[Marchettiman]

Because you would fail your I/R (or IMC rating) renewal if you don't use one? And it's the best way to be situationally aware whether you get vectors or not.
There are still plenty of airfields in France where radar isn't available (particularly at lunchtime) and a procedural approach is the only way to intercept.

[IO540]

Who is suggesting flying an IAP without having the plate?

The debate was vectors v. full-procedural.

It is true that, in an emergency, to fly an ILS all you need is to know the ILS frequency and get a vector to the localiser...

[englishal]

...or activate the approach in your Garmin glass cockpit, then everything is set up for you ;)

[FlyingOfficerKite]

I'm calm!!!

Since gaining my IR and flying for a living I remember how little I really knew with a PPL/Night/IMC.

So having spent years having SOPs drummed into me - and flying airliners with no GPS only the instruments you'd expect in an older twin - it goes against the grain when people ask questions which infer there is an option regarding the use of approach plates.

I once ended up diverting to Shannon and finding that someone had removed all the Shannon plates bar an NBD approach from the other end. We were already tired and to find, at the end of a cold foggy night, that there were no plates either was almost the final straw.

Yes, radar vectors to an ILS are child's play, but when things go wrong ...

KR

FOK :ok:

[spikeair]

I'm a ppl with an IMC rating.
When flying I have ALL of the approach plates. I sometimes fly the procedure for practice (especially NDB) and occasionaly you might find that the ILS is unservicable for some reason. I flew in to Filton once, the ILS was out so did a NDB/DME procedure.
Vectored ILS is easy but I alwasy have navaids tuned to build up a picture of where I am even if it not part of the ILS. So for exanple if tehre is a NDB on the airfield, and you have the DME from the ILS disaplyed, you've got a pretty good idea of where you.
personally really like instrument flying as I like mental challenge of it.

As someone else pointed out, the procedure is sometime flowing if coming in from the oterh side of the approach, say you are flying eastwards to wards manston and its a westerly wind, its easy enough to flying to the IAF (the NDB) and fly outbound and then turn to intercept the localiser. Easy for ATC as well I'd have thought.

Thats my two peneth