Conditional glidepath descent phraseology - pilots view appreciated
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere only we know...
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conditional glidepath descent phraseology - pilots view appreciated
Firstly, I really do not want to dredge up the on-going debate that is the 'new' ILS phraseology - that really has been done to death and there are several threads about this on here.
The question....
At my airfield we have instruction that impresses upon us to use the conditional instruction to descend on the glidepath when establised on the loc. Fine. Depending on the runway in use we often get a stream of straight-in approaches and descent is given to 2.5A is more or less given on first contact. Now, if I say to a pilot (who might be at, say, 30nm descending from FL90):
"Descend to altitude 2.5A"
And then I subsequently say (at an opportune moment):
"Turn right XXX, closing the localiser etc etc, when establised descend on the glidepath"
Am I right in thinking that the pilot will descend to 2.5A and then further descent will be with the glidepath? (even if they become localiser established at a level above 2.5A and probably outside the glidepath DOC - 10nm).
MATS pt 1 states:
"Controllers shall not instruct pilots to descend on the ILS/MLS when the glidepath intersect would be outside the glidepath DOC."
Which suggests that this method is OK as I have given positive instruction to descend to an altitude that means the aircraft will intercept the glidepath within its DOC.
If this is not the case and in actual fact the pilot arms the approach AP to descend with the glide as soon as the loc is captured, and this is 'normal' practice, then when does the CAA ever anticipate that the excerpt above would be applicable?
It hasn't caused me or others any problems yet but I've heard stories of 'false glidepaths'.
Sorry if that's long-winded, would be interested to get a pilot's view as well (regardless of what the procedures say or what controllers assume).
Thanks
The question....
At my airfield we have instruction that impresses upon us to use the conditional instruction to descend on the glidepath when establised on the loc. Fine. Depending on the runway in use we often get a stream of straight-in approaches and descent is given to 2.5A is more or less given on first contact. Now, if I say to a pilot (who might be at, say, 30nm descending from FL90):
"Descend to altitude 2.5A"
And then I subsequently say (at an opportune moment):
"Turn right XXX, closing the localiser etc etc, when establised descend on the glidepath"
Am I right in thinking that the pilot will descend to 2.5A and then further descent will be with the glidepath? (even if they become localiser established at a level above 2.5A and probably outside the glidepath DOC - 10nm).
MATS pt 1 states:
"Controllers shall not instruct pilots to descend on the ILS/MLS when the glidepath intersect would be outside the glidepath DOC."
Which suggests that this method is OK as I have given positive instruction to descend to an altitude that means the aircraft will intercept the glidepath within its DOC.
If this is not the case and in actual fact the pilot arms the approach AP to descend with the glide as soon as the loc is captured, and this is 'normal' practice, then when does the CAA ever anticipate that the excerpt above would be applicable?
It hasn't caused me or others any problems yet but I've heard stories of 'false glidepaths'.
Sorry if that's long-winded, would be interested to get a pilot's view as well (regardless of what the procedures say or what controllers assume).
Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you descend an aircraft to a level considerably below which it will intercept the glidepath? If you plan that it will intercept at, say, 12nm why not descend it to 3500ft instead of 2500 ft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere only we know...
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK the standard glidepath DOC as I understand is 10nm (which is approx 3A at our airfield, and most others I expect). I suppose 3A could be used instead, I just tend use 2.5A to get them down as low as possible w.r.t. the ATCSMAC chart.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamdring, as a pilot, if I heard that phraseology it would distract me, as it's non-standard. My preference is for: "cleared ILS approach." - but you're not allowed to say that here. So my second preference is for: "turn left heading XXX degrees (not left 10), closing the localiser from the right, when established descend with the glidepath".
I would not expect to be told to track the localiser if I was outside the DOC. I would also expect the intercept altitude to be the same as whatever is printed on the approach chart.
I would not expect to be told to track the localiser if I was outside the DOC. I would also expect the intercept altitude to be the same as whatever is printed on the approach chart.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHenderson, using the standard phraseology if you had previously been given a descent to 2500' and had established on the LOC at 16 miles, say at 4500', would you continue descent to 2500' before following the glide or would you use glidepath guidance immediately?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For god's sake, why don't the British use STANDARD ICAO phraseology instead of always wanting to reinvent aviation and by doing so making things worse, even dangerous!!
I refuse to respond to a "close the localiser from the right, descend with the glide". I want to hear a "cleared ILS". Just like anywhere else in EASA territory, and practically worldwide.
I refuse to respond to a "turn right heading 040 degrees". Either it is "turn right 40 degrees "or it is "turn right heading 040". Only in the UK you have these morons mixing both.
rant over.
I refuse to respond to a "close the localiser from the right, descend with the glide". I want to hear a "cleared ILS". Just like anywhere else in EASA territory, and practically worldwide.
I refuse to respond to a "turn right heading 040 degrees". Either it is "turn right 40 degrees "or it is "turn right heading 040". Only in the UK you have these morons mixing both.
rant over.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gc4atco
Generally speaking we are cleared on to the LLZ below the glide anyway (blatantly obvious), so if the platform is 2500ft (which we are cleared to) with the FAF at 8D and we are cleared onto the LLZ then further with the ILS whilst we are 3500ft and 12D for example then all I do is slow the ROD to capture the GS without levelling at the cleared 2500ft first to keep a continuous descent. This happens at alot of airfields, we are often not level on the platform before being cleared for the approach.
Every colleague I fly with does it this way too. If we take your example where we are 30nm out and descending through FL90, and cleared to 2500ft on the QNH, and cleared AP once established then what we do is use the GS as a descent path indicator until LLZ established (using ½ groundspeed for ROD), then as long as the chart has no restrictions on using the glidepath outside a certain DME then we just descend on it using check heights from either the charts or our heads to assume no false GS capture (325ft per nm for 3° + aerodrome reference height)
CC
Generally speaking we are cleared on to the LLZ below the glide anyway (blatantly obvious), so if the platform is 2500ft (which we are cleared to) with the FAF at 8D and we are cleared onto the LLZ then further with the ILS whilst we are 3500ft and 12D for example then all I do is slow the ROD to capture the GS without levelling at the cleared 2500ft first to keep a continuous descent. This happens at alot of airfields, we are often not level on the platform before being cleared for the approach.
Every colleague I fly with does it this way too. If we take your example where we are 30nm out and descending through FL90, and cleared to 2500ft on the QNH, and cleared AP once established then what we do is use the GS as a descent path indicator until LLZ established (using ½ groundspeed for ROD), then as long as the chart has no restrictions on using the glidepath outside a certain DME then we just descend on it using check heights from either the charts or our heads to assume no false GS capture (325ft per nm for 3° + aerodrome reference height)
CC
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refuse to respond to a "turn right heading 040 degrees". Either it is "turn right 40 degrees "or it is "turn right heading 040". Only in the UK you have these morons mixing both
I could equally say why don't every airline use the same SOPS? It would make my life easier and probably be much safer aswell.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because you don't fly for several airlines on a daily basis do you?!
You always have a choice.
People who know me on this forum are already aware that I like to stir things up a bit, I give sometimes "radical" or "rebel" views, something that isn't usual on Pprune, where a lot of our collegues are afraid to speak against some established rules/regulations/practices.
I will always be the one who "rows against the current"
You always have a choice.
People who know me on this forum are already aware that I like to stir things up a bit, I give sometimes "radical" or "rebel" views, something that isn't usual on Pprune, where a lot of our collegues are afraid to speak against some established rules/regulations/practices.
I will always be the one who "rows against the current"
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dorset
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I refuse to respond to a "close the localiser from the right, descend with the glide". I want to hear a "cleared ILS". Just like anywhere else in EASA territory, and practically worldwide.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we take your example where we are 30nm out and descending through FL90, and cleared to 2500ft on the QNH, and cleared AP once established then what we do is use the GS as a descent path indicator until LLZ established (using ½ groundspeed for ROD), then as long as the chart has no restrictions on using the glidepath outside a certain DME then we just descend on it using check heights from either the charts or our heads to assume no false GS capture (325ft per nm for 3° + aerodrome reference height)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I join the "cleared ILS" army here (or even "cleared approach" which we sometimes get up north in Norway when there's no other traffic). However a clearance to descend on the glideslope and track the localiser without an expressed approach clearance, I've never heard of. But then again I don't fly in England...
As for getting localiser and glideslope capture above a cleared altitude; I don't quite see the the problem of simply following the GS to the cleared altitude. You are still descending according to clearance unless told to expedite, right?
As for getting localiser and glideslope capture above a cleared altitude; I don't quite see the the problem of simply following the GS to the cleared altitude. You are still descending according to clearance unless told to expedite, right?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despegue
since you like to be argumentative,
the phraseology that you disagree with, is listed in the UK AIP GEN 1-7-49.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...GEN_1_7_en.pdf
Whether you like it or not, on a personal basis, that is the list of approved UK phraseology that differs from the ICAO standard phraseology.
This is ICAO SARP compliant, so I really struggle to find anymore grounds for you to argue with, other than the fact that "you don't like it"
If you brief yourself correctly upon entering UK airspace, according to the UK AIP, you would have no need to query whether the phraseology means you are cleared for the ILS or not.
I appreciate the fact that, however, if in doubt, you are quite right in asking confirmation. But to make it a habit, means you haven't briefed yourself appropriately. Or that you are deliberately being a c**t !
Kind regards
since you like to be argumentative,
the phraseology that you disagree with, is listed in the UK AIP GEN 1-7-49.
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...GEN_1_7_en.pdf
Whether you like it or not, on a personal basis, that is the list of approved UK phraseology that differs from the ICAO standard phraseology.
This is ICAO SARP compliant, so I really struggle to find anymore grounds for you to argue with, other than the fact that "you don't like it"
If you brief yourself correctly upon entering UK airspace, according to the UK AIP, you would have no need to query whether the phraseology means you are cleared for the ILS or not.
I appreciate the fact that, however, if in doubt, you are quite right in asking confirmation. But to make it a habit, means you haven't briefed yourself appropriately. Or that you are deliberately being a c**t !
Kind regards
Last edited by LEGAL TENDER; 10th Nov 2009 at 12:41.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for getting localiser and glideslope capture above a cleared altitude; I don't quite see the the problem of simply following the GS to the cleared altitude. You are still descending according to clearance unless told to expedite, right?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamdring
Alot of things in life shouldn't be used, but they are.
I did actually say it was used as a reference, not as a precision, and that it is then used within the limitations stipulated on the chart.
Alot of things in life shouldn't be used, but they are.
I did actually say it was used as a reference, not as a precision, and that it is then used within the limitations stipulated on the chart.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is the reason for the phraseology. If you have an incident whilst following the GP outside of 10 miles and during the investigation of the ATC recordings we are found to have not made it clear that you should not use the GP until inside of 10 miles then it is our necks on the line.
If you brief yourself correctly upon entering UK airspace,