Vectors for the ILS - track-shortening
 

Hello everyone. As you can see http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...2/ekch_aip.jpg http://aim.naviair.dk/AIM%20Document..._II_III_en.pdf
the full procedure ILS 22L at EKCH starts from 3000'

However it is standard procedure for 90% of our arrivals to be vectored in a for an approach establishing between 7-9 miles from TD with corresponding descend to 2000'

We received a right bollocking from an EasyJet captain the other day for having the nerve to vector them in below 3000' without advising them in advance.

I never got any kind of explanation from the guy, but could some of you pilot-types elaborate on the kind of issues that arise from a shortened approach as long as we take care to factor in mass/energy with distance to TD?

Thanks!

No idea what is problem was!

You come across these geezers some times. Flew with one the other day that went loose on ATC for not giving us FL380 as filed. No regard to the fact there was an aircraft right above us on the same route.

Ignore and move on.

Ignore and move on....

Why not try and find out what the issue was.Over here we're (nearly) all in it together and I'd like to know what I'd done that got that reaction.It's a learning process,even after 33 years and some.I've dished out a few telling offs myself but only as a last resort and with reason.

Unfortunately there are always a few people who will complain with the slightest excuse. If he wanted to avoid the same situation in future he should have explained what the problem was.

As an observation, not a general criticism of our pilot colleagues, I have noticed an increasing tendency for some pilots to operate aircraft via the computers rather than fly them as pilots.

Probably outside his, apparently small, comfort zone.

Stable approach criteria I reckon.
I get the impression Easyjet are more likely to get upset about this sort of thing than most others. "Children of the Magenta Line"? Too much ongoing line training? Airline culture? Threat of censure for busting stable approach criteria?

The industry is moving rapidly away from pilots that can fly to pilots as systems managers and Easy seem to be further down the road with this than many others.
I don't see why they needed to make an issue about it on the R/T though.

I do agree with that. What I meant was, if the vast majority of vectored approaches at 7-9 nm works without complaints, and then there is one guy giving out over it, then the problem is likely not your vectoring (assuming high vs. distance is OK) And having to take abuse over it is not fair.

and the published 3000 ft is immaterial to me when you are vectored for the approach.

He may have been flying with a pilot under training (MPL?)

He should have told ATC in advance what he wanted instead of mouthing off on the R/T - very unprofessional.

I see you have posted the chart for the VOR DME approach. Hard to say what his point may have been by looking at this one.

Shorten a VOR approach. Questionable without first checking...

Shorten an ILS approach. Well, I've had 4.5nm from you guys... 7 is just 'normal'...

(ps, I had the phrase 'super short' [approach] chucked at me prior to the 4.5nm one - I spent the whole of the taxi in thinking 'how the hell did he know...')

:D3

"Go around, expect full procedure ILS-approach"..... Something.....

Shortening a VOR approach in the bus requires some careful reprogramming to get the leg sequence correct and the autoflight system to behave appropriately. The majority of non-precison approaches we fly are overlays and the AFS uses a mode called Final Approach to compute a lateral and vertical path rather than raw data. The alternative is to fly it using track and flight path angle which takes a lot more monitoring. A lot of airlines have extensive training programmes and some of the trainees are very inexperienced. Throw in multi-sector days and short turnrounds and the trainer is working flat out.

At Heathrow many moons ago I had a US-registered 747 early one morning make a visual approach off WOD for 28L (now 27L). From just south of the field he started a turn which put him on final approach around 3 DME followed by a real greaser. I said "Jeez that was some approach". He replied: "You got a couple of 'nam vets up here boy". Wouldn't happen nowadays...

3nm ???? Normally turn for a 1.5nm final in GIB, 1nm for the northerly runway in Figari, similar in a couple of the Greek islands that I've been to.

You let us, we can. Chances of letting us... Errm, probably small!

But the one I did do to 09L ended up on a 4nm final (sorry so slack, but we did have the gear out to get down!) Director was still cheeky enough to vector someone 3nm behind us - Took us by surprise when we noticed!

Sorry, corrected that now.

Amazing difference you find in peoples attitudes towards this subject.

Just had a SAS training captain visit our facility and he'd like us to give som 90-120 degree intercept headings to the ILS/VOR once in a while just to teach "the kids" what the aircraft will actually do without overshooting. (if managed properly) Needless to say he failed to sympathize with the views of the EZY captain.

He seemed a bit "old school" but firmly believed that as long as you stay ahead of the aircraft most things are possible.

Bellow MSA on downwind right???
 

Depends where you told him to decend to 2000ft? Looking at the chart, the North-western 3rd has a MSA of 2100ft. If you dropped him to 2000ft without being in the final approach section he might have had a problem with it? Unless I'm miss reading something?

As a frequent visitor to EKCH, I can only say how impressed I am at the way you handle traffic compared to most other big airports. It just feels right most of the time. Please keep up the good work!:ok:

Short Approach?

Don't worry about it. I fly a heavy and CPH is on our route network and I would not be that worried if you vectored me onto the localiser within 10DME and below 3000 ft. We have one destination that spring to mind where due to terrain, you will always establish on the ILS inside 10DME and below 3000ft. The only concern I would have is if the track miles flown turned out to be considerably less than what may be given on the R/T, which would leave one a little hot and high.

You should have asked him if he was happy to continue, or would he prefer radar vectoring for a second approach? :E