Futher With The Glide
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three points, from an ATCO and Pilot point of view:
1) A/F Elevation. If you are going to give an elevation in this scenario, it should be the threshold elevation of the runway to which we are approaching, not the airfield elevation.
2) DME Range. Miles to touchdown when vectoring is useful to allow descent planning, and a DME check on clearance to intercept or descend on the glidepath is useful so I can check that my DME readout agrees with what the radar says. Remember that we use DME to check altitude vs glidepath during the approach (and the correct altitudes at certain DME are marked on the chart). If the DME is wrong, then we risk being at the wrong height at the wrong point, or going around because we suspect incorrect glidepath indications.
3) Use of QNH. Most airlines in the UK seem to use QNH for landing. They have their own reasons/SOPs for doing this. My reason is that the QNH-based figures are in bold type and easier to spot on the Thales charts, and they remove another need to reset an altimeter before landing or on the go-around.
Having said that, I use QFE if I'm doing bit of VFR flying or instructing at a local airfield. It removes the need for students to do mental calculations of Altitude minus A/F elevation to work out their height AGL whilst in the circuit.
I'm not an approach controller, but doesn't the 'Established Localiser' call give you the chance to check that they really ARE before they start to descend? One more link in the accident-prevention chain?
1) A/F Elevation. If you are going to give an elevation in this scenario, it should be the threshold elevation of the runway to which we are approaching, not the airfield elevation.
2) DME Range. Miles to touchdown when vectoring is useful to allow descent planning, and a DME check on clearance to intercept or descend on the glidepath is useful so I can check that my DME readout agrees with what the radar says. Remember that we use DME to check altitude vs glidepath during the approach (and the correct altitudes at certain DME are marked on the chart). If the DME is wrong, then we risk being at the wrong height at the wrong point, or going around because we suspect incorrect glidepath indications.
3) Use of QNH. Most airlines in the UK seem to use QNH for landing. They have their own reasons/SOPs for doing this. My reason is that the QNH-based figures are in bold type and easier to spot on the Thales charts, and they remove another need to reset an altimeter before landing or on the go-around.
Having said that, I use QFE if I'm doing bit of VFR flying or instructing at a local airfield. It removes the need for students to do mental calculations of Altitude minus A/F elevation to work out their height AGL whilst in the circuit.
I'm not an approach controller, but doesn't the 'Established Localiser' call give you the chance to check that they really ARE before they start to descend? One more link in the accident-prevention chain?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure we've been here before, but as I was taught:
"cleared ILS rwy xx" would clear you for a procedural approach - the full monty, initial approach fix, descent profile etc, viathe beacon you would holdat if necessary.
"closing the localiser" and all the rest belongs to a radar-vectored approach, and the biggest clue comes from the phrase "radar vectors ILS xx".
It could be argued that, at larger airports where a full procedural approach service would only be used as a last resort, this diffrentiation is unnecessary; however, imho there are still enough major airports who run procedural training (for pilots) in parallel with radar approaches plus those who run down to single-man full procedural services at night to keep it as is.
Please do not adjust your sets - normal service will be resumed shortly. Meanwhile, here is some music!
"cleared ILS rwy xx" would clear you for a procedural approach - the full monty, initial approach fix, descent profile etc, viathe beacon you would holdat if necessary.
"closing the localiser" and all the rest belongs to a radar-vectored approach, and the biggest clue comes from the phrase "radar vectors ILS xx".
It could be argued that, at larger airports where a full procedural approach service would only be used as a last resort, this diffrentiation is unnecessary; however, imho there are still enough major airports who run procedural training (for pilots) in parallel with radar approaches plus those who run down to single-man full procedural services at night to keep it as is.
Please do not adjust your sets - normal service will be resumed shortly. Meanwhile, here is some music!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought there was a certain charm in taking a big breath, mashing the foot swith and saying...
Six miles from Limma turn left heading 270 maintain three thousand two hundred until established on the localizer cleared ILS runway 25L approach, two-and-a-quarter till the marker, fater if you like, as you roll out on the localizer you'll have traffic three o'clock and a mile, an Airbus for the right who has you in sight, contact tower 120.95 at Limma good day. Unkey. Big breath. Do it again.
Or is that a bit much?
Dave
Six miles from Limma turn left heading 270 maintain three thousand two hundred until established on the localizer cleared ILS runway 25L approach, two-and-a-quarter till the marker, fater if you like, as you roll out on the localizer you'll have traffic three o'clock and a mile, an Airbus for the right who has you in sight, contact tower 120.95 at Limma good day. Unkey. Big breath. Do it again.
Or is that a bit much?
Dave
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave;
That sounds a bit right for me <G>... Of course, there was always a few more traffic calls than that <G>... Don't forget the IDAHO orbiting over lima... Been there, done that...
regards
Scott
That sounds a bit right for me <G>... Of course, there was always a few more traffic calls than that <G>... Don't forget the IDAHO orbiting over lima... Been there, done that...
regards
Scott
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean that Idaho that's not there? Kind of the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" deal... While we're chatting... this is something that I could never get a straight answer on: Did they settle on "Idaho" as a callsign because of the B-52's "Living in Your Own Private Idaho" or was that just coincidence? I've asked the chaps directly and nobody seemed to know.
Of course, it's not just Idaho. It's also the unrequested litany of calls from others doing the same thing... I clear Delta or whomever for the approach and mention copter traffic ahead and low, and out of the blue I get: "PD12's got the Delta." "PD3's got the Boeing in sight." "PD8's got the traffic," etc. I guess there's just something about the neighborhood...
Dave
Of course, it's not just Idaho. It's also the unrequested litany of calls from others doing the same thing... I clear Delta or whomever for the approach and mention copter traffic ahead and low, and out of the blue I get: "PD12's got the Delta." "PD3's got the Boeing in sight." "PD8's got the traffic," etc. I guess there's just something about the neighborhood...
Dave
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave;
Well I was sitting right seat in that aircraft many, many years ago <G>... give me an e-mail at [email protected] and we can chat.
Scott
Well I was sitting right seat in that aircraft many, many years ago <G>... give me an e-mail at [email protected] and we can chat.
Scott
