Gingerbread Man,

You are quite correct of course and just serves to illustrate how the CAA cannot get it's own publications to agree with each other. From CAP 413 Ch. 6 Page 9 Para 1.6.3:

NOTE: The following two ground station instructions may be given in more than one transmission. Controllers may additionally use the phrases ‘Report established on localiser’ or ‘Report established on glidepath’ where it is judged that this will aid situational awareness.

Locally, because of a number of occasions where aircraft have been unsure whether to descend or not and unable to get a word in edgeways, there have been several interesting go-arounds. As a result, local instructions have been issued which as well as clarifying what phraseology to use and when, do indeed remove the compulsory "established" report.

DD

I suppose the FAA way of saying it suffices for the rest of the world i.e.: "Turn left heading 270, maintain 2000' til established, cleared ILS 24".

WRT the suggestion made in the first post, about stating "cleared localiser", i would interpret that as an approach clearence, for flying a localiser only approach. I would expect to hear "join the localiser, maintain xxxx feet" or something similar to join the localiser without descending.

You need only look for a definition of a runway to see evidence of that!

Cheers ;)

GBM

So, why is the FAP at 2500 ft? Why not make it 4000 ft instead? Like every other state in the world with a similar problem.

Good question, don't know the answer.

How about "maintain xxxxft until glidepath interception, cleared ILS approach"?

Totally ICAO compliant.

Bit of a old thread, but relevant for me now.

Can someone please explain, and point to the relevant UK AND ICAO documents:

- Is there a difference in: "cleared ILS" & "cleared approach" (if the approach is an ILS)?
- Is the following correct: when under radar control, "cleared ILS" does NOT mean I can descend to platform altitude, and when I'm NOT under radar control I CAN descend to platform altutude? If not, is the correct wording "cleared ILS according to the procedure"?

And, on a side note, what if a controller has me vectored on a 90 degree intercept and cleared me for approach, can I adjust my heading to intercept without overshooting? Radar, non radar, above/below MSA?

While I'm going: when I'm given "descent to FLXXX with 2000 ft/min" do you expect 1000 ft/min in the last 1000ft?


Tnx!

<<And, on a side note, what if a controller has me vectored on a 90 degree intercept and cleared me for approach,>>

I'm just wondering what controller would ever do that?

A:
- Spanish
- Italian
- Russian

etc controller?

What is the protected range of the glidepath ?

Maybe 13 miles is a little too far.

ILS Protection Range now seems to be referred to as Designated Operation Coverage (DOC) and in UK is normally 25nm (Localiser) and 10nm (Glide Path).

See UK AIC 12/2008 ...


JD
:)

LHR glide path is 'protected' to 15nm.

Protected range of the glide path at GVA is about 20 nm, so I would think it isn't that the beams don't work beyond 10nm but they just aren't checked.

Combination of;

Glideslope coverage

Lowest level at which flights will be at on the intermediate segment (on the loc before GS intercept)

Ensuring that the above mentioned intermediate segment is an appropriate length for stabilisation - 2nm normally between LOC established and GS intercept. - Pre continuous descent noise abatement!!

Keeping the above flights within the relevant airspace.

Is it? Where is that on the chart?

My reading of the chart shows an intermediate approach level of 2500ft altitude but there is no indication of the initial approach level which is what the level assigned by ATC while vectoring is and there is no procedure for descending from the initial approach level to the intermediate approach level during vectors unless cleared by ATC.

If the procedure is completed without radar then the appropriate chart details when the aircraft can descend from the initial approach level but that does not apply when being vectored.

The problem with clearing flights to descend with the ILS from say 3000ft and using that as a basis to keep vertical separation from a helicopter on the extended centerline, is that it is doing in the vertical sense what UK ATCOs refuse to do in a horizontal sense

i.e. Just because the flight is told to descend with the glideslope after establishing on the loc it does not guarantee that the flight will not descend early. Even being told "maintain 3000ft until the glideslope" does not guarantee that descent will not start at say 12 miles from touchdown due to the inherent errors that can be in the system.

The only way to ensure separation is to treat the traffic as mobile obstacles, build in a buffer and apply the appropriate procedure design criteria. having done that the chart can show the area(s) within which the mobile airborne obstacles are and everyone knows (just like they do when there is terrain) why they have to respect the appropriate levels.

Anything else is only tipe toeing round the edges of the problem.

If published FAP altitude is lower than required by traffic situation - German ATCOs use a nice phrase like this: "TURN RIGHT HDG xxx, CLEARED ILS yy, LEAVE 4000 ON THE GLIDESLOPE". Quite clear, isn't it?