When To Arm The Automation When Shooting an ILS
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,110
Likes: 1,083
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
I concur. Someone mentioned incorrectly allowing the aircraft to intercept the localiser when ATC might want you to go through and turn back - shouldn't happen because the instructions ATC give should make it completely obvious if you are cleared to intercept the ILS, or not. If not, you don't!
So, I arm the auto ILS when on a closing/intercept heading once through the 90 degree "base leg" heading. I just let it get on with it but closely monitor what it's doing as if it's a naughty co-pilot. Although the dastardly device flies the approach much better than I can, anyway.
So, I arm the auto ILS when on a closing/intercept heading once through the 90 degree "base leg" heading. I just let it get on with it but closely monitor what it's doing as if it's a naughty co-pilot. Although the dastardly device flies the approach much better than I can, anyway.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
What are the limitations on localizer intercept?
I've seen systems that work to 115° of the inbound course, and others that will turn you outbound with a 91° intercept angle...
Should be a published number in the limitations section of the FM.
I've seen systems that work to 115° of the inbound course, and others that will turn you outbound with a 91° intercept angle...
Should be a published number in the limitations section of the FM.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
From: 18 Degrees North
The other day I was vectored across the localiser twice without being cleared to intercept it, it was only on the 3rd time that we approached on a closing heading that we were cleared, so at that point we actually armed the approach.
Actually I pressed DCL (decel which arms the LOC, GS and DCL)
On the 139 the guidance is:-
Max recommended LOC intercept angle ............. 45° (range > 10 nm)
Max recommended LOC intercept angle ............. 30° (range < 10 nm)
Actually I pressed DCL (decel which arms the LOC, GS and DCL)
On the 139 the guidance is:-
Max recommended LOC intercept angle ............. 45° (range > 10 nm)
Max recommended LOC intercept angle ............. 30° (range < 10 nm)
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Texas
Actually I pressed DCL (decel which arms the LOC, GS and DCL)
Last edited by TexanHawk; 28th April 2014 at 09:55.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 71
Likes: 1
From: Canada
Rotorsim instructor?
There is a bunch of "wirdo" at rotorsim who think they know the aircraft better than us who are flying it every day.
They don't have any experience on the aircraft and come up with some strange ideas or procedures who do not make any sense.
Rotorsim should check who they hire in order to avoid to teach wrong procedures who can become dangerous in some cases.
You have to be lucky to get a good one, there is to much turnaround with this company and it creates a very inconsistent training year after year.
Sad and unacceptable
They don't have any experience on the aircraft and come up with some strange ideas or procedures who do not make any sense.
Rotorsim should check who they hire in order to avoid to teach wrong procedures who can become dangerous in some cases.
You have to be lucky to get a good one, there is to much turnaround with this company and it creates a very inconsistent training year after year.
Sad and unacceptable
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 522
Likes: 77
From: USA
You do raise a good point Arcal. I know a few of the guys over at MMU and they are heavily experienced in other airframes. Very few pilots with current medicals have any desire to flight instruct. I mean, do you feel like applying?
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 917
Likes: 11
From: Tax-land.
Funny Arcal, I thought the same thing. When I was there last I noticed that they had a safety reporting system or something like that, so that if a student had a complaint he or she could communicate it that way and be very much up front about it. I heard their managenent took it very seriously.
I also heard that they have a direct line of communication with the customer's operations managers, what with some of the students (we're all considered students there) needing more attention than others or perhaps being somewhat set in their ways.
I enjoyed training there, it's a good networking experience and after a while you get to know who everyone really is.
BTW, for everyone else here it's called LOCALIZER.
I also heard that they have a direct line of communication with the customer's operations managers, what with some of the students (we're all considered students there) needing more attention than others or perhaps being somewhat set in their ways.
I enjoyed training there, it's a good networking experience and after a while you get to know who everyone really is.
BTW, for everyone else here it's called LOCALIZER.
Last edited by tottigol; 29th April 2014 at 16:36.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Hiding in the Rockies
Only when cleared for the approach with the possible exception of being cleared to intercept the localizer prior to approach clearance. Not sure if that machine has the capability to track LOC only.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
From: Below Escape Velocity
LOC is for when one has an ILS system but does not utiliZe the glideslope, either because it is unserviceable, it is a back course, one chooses not to for training or other purposes or because the aircraft's systems are unable.
LLZ is for a standalone localiZer system without glideslope. These do exist, and in fact existed before the ILS, and the system was invented by that chap educated in Californiashire.
But you brilliant chaps across the pond knew all that, and the Yanks have not a thing to teach you.
As for 'aluminum', that was coined by a British fellow, Sir H(arr)umphry Davy, as he wasn't fond of 'alumium', which he first called it. However, that usage annoyed other British fellows, because they preferred all their 'ium's in a row.
tottigol, kindly let me have a 'harrumph' out of you.
LLZ is for a standalone localiZer system without glideslope. These do exist, and in fact existed before the ILS, and the system was invented by that chap educated in Californiashire.
But you brilliant chaps across the pond knew all that, and the Yanks have not a thing to teach you.
As for 'aluminum', that was coined by a British fellow, Sir H(arr)umphry Davy, as he wasn't fond of 'alumium', which he first called it. However, that usage annoyed other British fellows, because they preferred all their 'ium's in a row.
tottigol, kindly let me have a 'harrumph' out of you.
