"Interesting" instrument approach
Upto The Buffers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Interesting" instrument approach
On my way back to Leeds today, sat at about 3500ft in IMC I asked if I could track in to the beacon for an NDB/DME approach. Usual routine is a simple vectored ILS, but since I haven't done an NBD for ages I thought, why not.
This was accepted, so I commenced tracking in, only to be asked if I could accept vectors. Scratching my head a little, I said ok, thinking he must be wanting to vector me around other traffic. This carried on for quite a while, and looking at the ADF/DME it was fairly apparent I'd been vectored to essentially a downwind position, nowhere near the procedure track.
Anyway, eventually he vectored me to somewhere roughly on the base turn and I was instructed to continue with the procedure. Needless to say this left me a little out of sorts and I made a complete arse of it, to the point where if I hadn't just broken cloud I would have gone around.
Is this common? I've done quite a number of NDB approaches and never had this occur before.
This was accepted, so I commenced tracking in, only to be asked if I could accept vectors. Scratching my head a little, I said ok, thinking he must be wanting to vector me around other traffic. This carried on for quite a while, and looking at the ADF/DME it was fairly apparent I'd been vectored to essentially a downwind position, nowhere near the procedure track.
Anyway, eventually he vectored me to somewhere roughly on the base turn and I was instructed to continue with the procedure. Needless to say this left me a little out of sorts and I made a complete arse of it, to the point where if I hadn't just broken cloud I would have gone around.
Is this common? I've done quite a number of NDB approaches and never had this occur before.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers swapped over, possibly, with a bit of confusion over what you'd asked for.
Every NDB I've asked for has always been procedural, by the IAP. I've never been vectored to the base turn for a Non-Precision Approach but I'm sure there are those more experienced than I who have.
Every NDB I've asked for has always been procedural, by the IAP. I've never been vectored to the base turn for a Non-Precision Approach but I'm sure there are those more experienced than I who have.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been vectored onto finals for the NDB app at Cambridge - they asked if they could because they could then maintain separation by positive control and hence accommodate more traffic. So I went beacon outbound as normal, was then asked if I would accept vectors, then vectored onto base and then given an intercept to final approach.
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to be very common in Europe (Spain in my experience), and I believe Southampton sometimes vector to the NDB...
Last time I personally vectored traffic to the NDB was when the 08R ILS was withdrawn at Gatwick (mid 90s?) All traffic was vectored to a closing heading and told to report established on the inbound track.
Curious to watch the "Iberian Penisula" airlines nail every approach, while the Air UK a/c (and other UK carriers) made S turns to one side and then the other until visual
We guessed at the time that the "foreigners" had more practice on their day to day routes
BEX
Last time I personally vectored traffic to the NDB was when the 08R ILS was withdrawn at Gatwick (mid 90s?) All traffic was vectored to a closing heading and told to report established on the inbound track.
Curious to watch the "Iberian Penisula" airlines nail every approach, while the Air UK a/c (and other UK carriers) made S turns to one side and then the other until visual
We guessed at the time that the "foreigners" had more practice on their day to day routesBEX
Upto The Buffers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never even got near the beacon. I was vectored north of it by 3.5nm. Just as I was thinking, "WTF?!", my well-qualified accomplice pointed out that we'd blasted straight through the localiser. It happened to be tuned in, but being an NDB/DME approach I hadn't included it in the scan. At this point there was no way I'd be within 30deg for a non-prec approach so since I'd broken cloud I just trundled on in visually still thinking, "WTF?!".
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: cambridge
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like TMM, I too have been offered vectors to NDB at Cambridge. I had just started outbound for the 05 NDB Procedural and didn't ask for it, but was happy to accept as a new experience. ATC positioned me at base turn altitude on a 30deg intercept to the final approach track.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Usual advice - go and speak to the controllers and ask what they do and whether something went awry today.
It's not an uncommon procedure but there's not a lot of guidance to controllers on how to do it - and probably less for pilots. When I first went yo an airport where it was done I went and spoke to some instructors and pilots to see what worked for them - general consensus seemed to be thay they wanted to be on a closing heading of 30 deg or less (ideally 15-20 deg) at the level assigned for the end of the base turn or whatever, and at a greater range than the base turn ended - final reques was a range check when I turned them towards the FAT. All of that is pretty easy to accommodate - certainly in comarison to trying to vector and sequence other traffic around a procedural approach!
It's not an uncommon procedure but there's not a lot of guidance to controllers on how to do it - and probably less for pilots. When I first went yo an airport where it was done I went and spoke to some instructors and pilots to see what worked for them - general consensus seemed to be thay they wanted to be on a closing heading of 30 deg or less (ideally 15-20 deg) at the level assigned for the end of the base turn or whatever, and at a greater range than the base turn ended - final reques was a range check when I turned them towards the FAT. All of that is pretty easy to accommodate - certainly in comarison to trying to vector and sequence other traffic around a procedural approach!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no reasomn at all why the controller can't vector you to an NDB (or VOR) FAT - just as they can vector you to an ILS.
Unfortunately, there is a training mindset in many FTOs that says "NDB approaches must be procedural".
Unfortunately, there is a training mindset in many FTOs that says "NDB approaches must be procedural".
Upto The Buffers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's fair enough. I asked simply because I didn't know and I've never experienced it before. ILS is fine, you can easily see what you're doing. NDB, despite being simpler in principle is actually more difficult to fly, requiring more than just glancing at a gauge to execute. When you fly a standard procedure you know where you are; outbound leg, base turn, final. Being vectored I was unaware of the intention; did he mishear and was vectoring me for the ILS? When I finally heard, "further with the procedure", I could have used a few seconds to feed the DI/ADF info into my brain, but by the time I figured out what he was doing it had all gone pear-shaped.
Oh well, chalk it down to esperience I guess.
Oh well, chalk it down to esperience I guess.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very common at large airports to be vectored onto a NPA when the ILS is out. The have been quite a few cock ups in rather large aircraft doing them. The one at Birmingham when an airbus got down to mins with 10 miles to run springs to mind.
The NDB approach at LBA is rather special. You will please to know that many an aspiring commercial pilot has made a right royal arse of that one. It has several features including the fact that it bends which make it memorable for anyone who has used an EXAM call sign there.
The trick with these is to always insist that they decend you to the platform height on the procedure. Don't except lower or higher. The reason for this is because the work load of trying to figure out where the top of decent is when your not at the platform is quite high. And if you remember always ask for them to vector you on with a couple of miles to spare on final to get your tracking right before decent. Its a high work load situation for a multi crew commercial aircraft if one is sprung on you short notice, never mind single crew.
The NDB approach at LBA is rather special. You will please to know that many an aspiring commercial pilot has made a right royal arse of that one. It has several features including the fact that it bends which make it memorable for anyone who has used an EXAM call sign there.
The trick with these is to always insist that they decend you to the platform height on the procedure. Don't except lower or higher. The reason for this is because the work load of trying to figure out where the top of decent is when your not at the platform is quite high. And if you remember always ask for them to vector you on with a couple of miles to spare on final to get your tracking right before decent. Its a high work load situation for a multi crew commercial aircraft if one is sprung on you short notice, never mind single crew.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can be vectored to the initial, intermediate or final approach fixes at the appropriate platform height/altitude. You should have been told which bit the controller was aiming at and should have been given a closing heading for the relevant leg.
You can be vectored to the initial, intermediate or final approach fixes at the appropriate platform height/altitude. You should have been told which bit the controller was aiming at and should have been given a closing heading for the relevant leg.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mats that is best practise. But with alot of controllers with limited experence in procedural control if any Just don't realise the problems that occur if you don't. Unfortunatly I don't think its being taught anymore.
They have their cunning plans which work great with vectors for the ILS. But when used for vectors for NPA they can cause problems. Its lack of appreciation more than anything.
This is going slight out side the realms of Private GA flying but illustrates the problems that experenced commercial operations have.
Alot of companys have a different set of SOP's for flying NPA's to ILS's
On an ILS you can configure while decending. NPA's you have to be fully configured before the final decent point back to Vref + 10 which can be as low as 140knts. So vectors to a 10 mile final at a none platform height with top of decent at 6 miles and speed control of not less than 160 to 4 is a bit of an issue.
From a light aircraft point of view it is the same, by far the easiest and safest way of flying these things is by flying them fully configured for landing. Anything which deviates away from the published procedure increases the work load 10 fold.
They have their cunning plans which work great with vectors for the ILS. But when used for vectors for NPA they can cause problems. Its lack of appreciation more than anything.
This is going slight out side the realms of Private GA flying but illustrates the problems that experenced commercial operations have.
Alot of companys have a different set of SOP's for flying NPA's to ILS's
On an ILS you can configure while decending. NPA's you have to be fully configured before the final decent point back to Vref + 10 which can be as low as 140knts. So vectors to a 10 mile final at a none platform height with top of decent at 6 miles and speed control of not less than 160 to 4 is a bit of an issue.
From a light aircraft point of view it is the same, by far the easiest and safest way of flying these things is by flying them fully configured for landing. Anything which deviates away from the published procedure increases the work load 10 fold.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being vectored for a non-precision approach is indeed very common.
When I flew at Blackpool, it was standard practice for all instrument traffic, including airliners, to be vectored onto the NDB for runway 10. (No ILS on that runway.) Bexil160 mentioned Southampton; I don't believe they routinely vector traffic onto the NDB as he suggests, but they certainly vector traffic onto the VOR approach for runway 02 all the time. (No ILS on that runway either.)
Mad Jock suggests that you should always be vectored down to the platform altitude; this frequently doesn't happen at the airports I train at, where it is quite common to be vectored higher than the platform altitude. In this case, once established on the final approach track, you should be "cleared to descend with the procedure", which generally means you can descend to the platform altitude, then further at the FAF (but check all the notes on the plate to make sure this is the case; the VOR approaches at Southampton, for example, have a different descent profile if you are vectored straight in). Having said that, on my last IR revalidation, I had a CAA Staff Examiner in the back seat, and during the debrief he suggested that, if cleared to descend with the procedure from a long way out, it may be better to maintain your height until a little closer in, and descend in order to be at the platform altitude a mile or so before the FAF.
I do agree with Mad Jock that you should not be vectored below the platform altitude. Although I don't have any reference to back this up, I do recall a thread somewhere on PPRuNe from several years ago, where a commercial pilot said that he'd been vectored to an NDB approach below the platform altitude, and he was asking if this was common and how it should be flown. The unanimous reply was that this should not happen.
I would suggest, as well as speaking to the Leeds controllers, having a chat with an IMC or IR instructor if you are still in any doubt.
FFF
---------------
When I flew at Blackpool, it was standard practice for all instrument traffic, including airliners, to be vectored onto the NDB for runway 10. (No ILS on that runway.) Bexil160 mentioned Southampton; I don't believe they routinely vector traffic onto the NDB as he suggests, but they certainly vector traffic onto the VOR approach for runway 02 all the time. (No ILS on that runway either.)
Mad Jock suggests that you should always be vectored down to the platform altitude; this frequently doesn't happen at the airports I train at, where it is quite common to be vectored higher than the platform altitude. In this case, once established on the final approach track, you should be "cleared to descend with the procedure", which generally means you can descend to the platform altitude, then further at the FAF (but check all the notes on the plate to make sure this is the case; the VOR approaches at Southampton, for example, have a different descent profile if you are vectored straight in). Having said that, on my last IR revalidation, I had a CAA Staff Examiner in the back seat, and during the debrief he suggested that, if cleared to descend with the procedure from a long way out, it may be better to maintain your height until a little closer in, and descend in order to be at the platform altitude a mile or so before the FAF.
I do agree with Mad Jock that you should not be vectored below the platform altitude. Although I don't have any reference to back this up, I do recall a thread somewhere on PPRuNe from several years ago, where a commercial pilot said that he'd been vectored to an NDB approach below the platform altitude, and he was asking if this was common and how it should be flown. The unanimous reply was that this should not happen.
I would suggest, as well as speaking to the Leeds controllers, having a chat with an IMC or IR instructor if you are still in any doubt.
FFF
---------------
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF this one of these ones where local interpretation, Nats and ICAO differ on.
ICAO if you are cleared for the procedure or to decend with the procedure you can go down to procedure alt from the point that they clear you for the procedure.
Some UK airports (none NATS) this will bring you into conflict with other aircraft. Thier local training training team has decided that thats the rules and they are right and everyone else in the world is wrong. I have seen Captains on the phone to the SATCO livid after a discussion about an RA due to decending as you suggest and it ended up with the usual opposing MOR's being filed. I did notice the next time we operated into there they had changed the clearance slightly telling you to maintain level until beacon inbound.
These days I refuse to do it. I don't care if I get spun out of the sequence. Either they clear me down to the platform alt before the top of decent or I don't play. I will always ask for it, if not given by base. And I have been asked about it by Flight ops inspectors. My reply of I am not
ing about doing a NPA on the fly away from the plates in crap wx was received by a smile and a quite right mate thats why they are called air traffic service. We have more than enough work to do on a ****ty day dealing with a high work load approach than compromise safety by having to make stuff up as we go along.
Edited to add I think it was myself that started that thread. And I had a very productive discussion with one of the training team at MAN, who decided that it was good practise and would deal with the issue.
ICAO if you are cleared for the procedure or to decend with the procedure you can go down to procedure alt from the point that they clear you for the procedure.
Some UK airports (none NATS) this will bring you into conflict with other aircraft. Thier local training training team has decided that thats the rules and they are right and everyone else in the world is wrong. I have seen Captains on the phone to the SATCO livid after a discussion about an RA due to decending as you suggest and it ended up with the usual opposing MOR's being filed. I did notice the next time we operated into there they had changed the clearance slightly telling you to maintain level until beacon inbound.
These days I refuse to do it. I don't care if I get spun out of the sequence. Either they clear me down to the platform alt before the top of decent or I don't play. I will always ask for it, if not given by base. And I have been asked about it by Flight ops inspectors. My reply of I am not
ing about doing a NPA on the fly away from the plates in crap wx was received by a smile and a quite right mate thats why they are called air traffic service. We have more than enough work to do on a ****ty day dealing with a high work load approach than compromise safety by having to make stuff up as we go along.Edited to add I think it was myself that started that thread. And I had a very productive discussion with one of the training team at MAN, who decided that it was good practise and would deal with the issue.
