Why use a let down plate?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why opt to use a let down plate? [title amended for clarification]
I've done quite a few ILS approaches. Although I obviously had to do an NDB / DME approach procedure for my IMCr test, I've never actually come across a real "live" situation where I have been told to, or requested the procedure.
So, my question is probably very simple and it is, under what circumstances might you OPT to request (or be TOLD to use) the procedure rather than asking for vectors to the ILS? (obviously its the only choice where there is no ILS).
thanks.
[OP amended for clarity!]
So, my question is probably very simple and it is, under what circumstances might you OPT to request (or be TOLD to use) the procedure rather than asking for vectors to the ILS? (obviously its the only choice where there is no ILS).
thanks.
[OP amended for clarity!]
Last edited by VMC-on-top; 18th Feb 2010 at 15:31.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always use the plate, even if getting vectors.
One situation I have run across is coming back into an airport very late at night (i.e. the airport is kept open for you). The radar controller has probably gone home / having a snooze, so you are told to fly the procedure to intercept the ILS....As the Initial approach fix was overhead the AP then you follow the alts / instructions on the plate, so you might come across the IAF at 3000 and then the procedure tells you to descend to 1600' for example....
One situation I have run across is coming back into an airport very late at night (i.e. the airport is kept open for you). The radar controller has probably gone home / having a snooze, so you are told to fly the procedure to intercept the ILS....As the Initial approach fix was overhead the AP then you follow the alts / instructions on the plate, so you might come across the IAF at 3000 and then the procedure tells you to descend to 1600' for example....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: EGJJ
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few airfields with Approach aids don't have Radar, so how can you be vectored, e.g. Plymouth, Cranfield, Gloster to name a few in the South of UK.
How can you check frequencies, minimas, g/around procedure without a valid chart? I'm amazed that you have admitted your rather questionable "skills"
How can you check frequencies, minimas, g/around procedure without a valid chart? I'm amazed that you have admitted your rather questionable "skills"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly all big airports around Europe have ILS and you will get vectors to the localiser, as a standard thing.
However, one finds procedural approaches in some suprising places. I flew into Hania LGSA (Crete) which is full of F16s flying circuits nonstop, radars all over the place, but apparently the civilian controller doesn't have a radar screen (or is not allowed to see it). So you get a procedural VOR approach, and you are told to "report ready to commence the approach" which, never having heard it before, I took as meaning "report beacon outbound" or some such
Procedural approaches are easy enough to fly - just do wot da plate sez.
Anyway, missed approaches are procedural even when you were vectored to the localiser. Unless you get vectors after going missed... which is a bonus but you can't rely on it, and the missed approach procedure is likely to take you into a hold so you need to be able to hack that too.
However, one finds procedural approaches in some suprising places. I flew into Hania LGSA (Crete) which is full of F16s flying circuits nonstop, radars all over the place, but apparently the civilian controller doesn't have a radar screen (or is not allowed to see it). So you get a procedural VOR approach, and you are told to "report ready to commence the approach" which, never having heard it before, I took as meaning "report beacon outbound" or some such
Procedural approaches are easy enough to fly - just do wot da plate sez.
Anyway, missed approaches are procedural even when you were vectored to the localiser. Unless you get vectors after going missed... which is a bonus but you can't rely on it, and the missed approach procedure is likely to take you into a hold so you need to be able to hack that too.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody with a brain would fly a procedural approach if they are offered vectors
Why complicate matters for oneself, and for the ATCO who probably has not done a procedural approach in many months.
Otherwise, the main reason to ask for one is for training/practice, but I would still not do that in relatively busy places abroad because the ATCO will have quite possibly slotted you into his arrivals stream on the assumption that you will go straight in.
It's a similar argument to hand flying approaches when one has an autopilot capable of flying an ILS down to 200ft. IMHO one should make full use of cockpit automation, and do one's hand-flying practice in Class G where nobody is watching
Why complicate matters for oneself, and for the ATCO who probably has not done a procedural approach in many months.
Otherwise, the main reason to ask for one is for training/practice, but I would still not do that in relatively busy places abroad because the ATCO will have quite possibly slotted you into his arrivals stream on the assumption that you will go straight in.
It's a similar argument to hand flying approaches when one has an autopilot capable of flying an ILS down to 200ft. IMHO one should make full use of cockpit automation, and do one's hand-flying practice in Class G where nobody is watching
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Quote
Nobody with a brain would fly a procedural approach if they are offered vectors
Once you get south of the Med you think very hard when the offer of "radar vectors" is made, I have found it far better to be totaly in charge of your own destiny.
Nobody with a brain would fly a procedural approach if they are offered vectors
Once you get south of the Med you think very hard when the offer of "radar vectors" is made, I have found it far better to be totaly in charge of your own destiny.
I've had times where I chose pilot interpreted because I thought it was more efficient than vectored. I've been in a position to fly directly outbound when approaching from the opposite direction to do an 80/260 procedure turn to get onto final vs. get vectored quite a few miles to the side before finally being turned to intercept final.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Arizona Bay
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://.../06239NDGA.PDF
here's a good one
definitely would make the right-seater do all the effort and stand outside of the FD door and greet pax as they disembark.
here's a good one
definitely would make the right-seater do all the effort and stand outside of the FD door and greet pax as they disembark.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I have heard stories of pilots having to remain firmly in charge of their obstacle clearance while being vectored at certain more southern countries, with Spain featuring prominently... and I can well believe it. A lot of ATC services are only just hanging in there
However, I wonder how many pilots simply abandon situational awareness when vectored? OK, this is easily said in the age of moving-map GPS, and GPS-based GPWS.
But my argument remains, which is that being vectored is much easier.
However, I wonder how many pilots simply abandon situational awareness when vectored? OK, this is easily said in the age of moving-map GPS, and GPS-based GPWS.
But my argument remains, which is that being vectored is much easier.
One would have thought that vectors to the ILS would be simpler to fly than the full procedure.
But I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness if they are offered diverse vectors to the ILS. Perhaps a symptom of the playstation generation who can follow the approach chart (sorry, I won't stoop to the Americanisation 'plate'..
) but without a moving map GPS, even with a constant brg/rng readout to the aerodrome provided by GPS (text) and NDB/DME indications they find awareness of their approximate position rather taxing. They are also worse at coping with accurate instrument flying and RT when following vectors... A few years ago RT was simplified for procedural approaches; you probably called beacon outbound and glidepath descending and that was all. Whereas with vectors you have to listen, acknowledge, fly the instruction and keep a mental note of where you are.
Those of us weaned on radar vectors to PAR and other non-procedural approaches had to learn this sixth sense of SA, which took a while to acquire. We perhaps had a (very) minimal navigation fit or even nothing at all. Whereas bumbling to the beacon and flying the familiar friend of the same old NDB/DME to ILS is a probably a lot simpler for some.
But I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness if they are offered diverse vectors to the ILS. Perhaps a symptom of the playstation generation who can follow the approach chart (sorry, I won't stoop to the Americanisation 'plate'..
) but without a moving map GPS, even with a constant brg/rng readout to the aerodrome provided by GPS (text) and NDB/DME indications they find awareness of their approximate position rather taxing. They are also worse at coping with accurate instrument flying and RT when following vectors... A few years ago RT was simplified for procedural approaches; you probably called beacon outbound and glidepath descending and that was all. Whereas with vectors you have to listen, acknowledge, fly the instruction and keep a mental note of where you are.Those of us weaned on radar vectors to PAR and other non-procedural approaches had to learn this sixth sense of SA, which took a while to acquire. We perhaps had a (very) minimal navigation fit or even nothing at all. Whereas bumbling to the beacon and flying the familiar friend of the same old NDB/DME to ILS is a probably a lot simpler for some.
VMC-on-top
One problem is that the question in your post is quite different from the question in the title you chose. There are relatively few reasons for using a procedural approach if a vectored approach is available -- training or testing equipment come to mind. But even if vectors are available, the approach chart is very important. It shows minimum safe altitudes, missed approach procedure, and important notes, all of which are important in a vectored approach.
One problem is that the question in your post is quite different from the question in the title you chose. There are relatively few reasons for using a procedural approach if a vectored approach is available -- training or testing equipment come to mind. But even if vectors are available, the approach chart is very important. It shows minimum safe altitudes, missed approach procedure, and important notes, all of which are important in a vectored approach.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
Being vectored is much easier?
Errm...
Vectors = not sure of track miles (sometimes a hazy estimate from ATC), V/S to have a shot at a CDA, variable quality of intercept angle with LLZ and not sure if we'll be put on the G/S from below or have to intercept from above...
Procedure = LNAV + VNAV, a CDA for sure, and just the right place onto the ILS.
There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.
...and it sounds to me as though, despite his later protestations, the OP doesn't really know what an approach plate is for, or how to use it...
Being vectored is much easier?
Errm...
Vectors = not sure of track miles (sometimes a hazy estimate from ATC), V/S to have a shot at a CDA, variable quality of intercept angle with LLZ and not sure if we'll be put on the G/S from below or have to intercept from above...
Procedure = LNAV + VNAV, a CDA for sure, and just the right place onto the ILS.
There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.
...and it sounds to me as though, despite his later protestations, the OP doesn't really know what an approach plate is for, or how to use it...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.
But I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness .......... They are also worse at coping with accurate instrument flying and RT when following vectors... A few years ago RT was simplified for procedural approaches; you probably called beacon outbound and glidepath descending and that was all. Whereas with vectors you have to listen, acknowledge, fly the instruction and keep a mental note of where you are.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've noticed during IMC rating revalidations that some pilots do indeed lose situational awareness if they are offered diverse vectors to the ILS
On my FAA IR, the goggles came on at about 50ft and then I got about 10 vectors, and then had to intercept a certain VOR radial. This was a pig of a job and obviously totally unrealistic. It was possible only because the timing was rigged to make it possible.
Almost no modern IFR pilot flies without a GPS moving map today. The Q becomes one asking how many instruments can fail before you tell ATC...
There's a time and place for both, of course, but at regional airports when coming in from the opposite side to the approach direction, the procedure has considerable merit.
I'd have vectors every time.
The problem is that most (uk) procedural approaches involve flying to the fix and then outbound, then turn back inbound. This system dates back to the goode olde days when men were men, girlz were girlz, and a pilot knew only vaguely where he was, and he had to track to the fix first. Nowadays, with GPS moving maps, one would just do a self-positioned intercept onto the inbound track, directly from the enroute segment - if necessary at a level allocated by ATC to avoid conflict with other traffic. That is how GPS approaches work: you fly to the nearest IAF and head straight in, along the T shape.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from any legal requirements, common b****y sense and the fact that radio frequencies, MSA, vertical and horizontal profiles, missed approach procedures and numerous other important and relevant information is contained on them, you're right why bother to use approach plates?
And you wonder why the rest of Europe doesn't recognize the UK IMC Rating!?
KR
FOK
And you wonder why the rest of Europe doesn't recognize the UK IMC Rating!?
KR
FOK