Bad Vectors on a Checkride.

[A Squared]

Hi,

I’m interested in some discussion on the following situation: WE do most of our training and checking at Fairbanks International (FAI, PAFA). One recurring problem is that when getting vectors for final for ILS RWY 19R, (Unless there's unusual wind conditions, you usually do that ILS twice each checkride) more often than not FAI approach gives you vectors that leave you intercepting the localizer well above the glide slope. I don’t mean this is an occasional "oops, sorry, bad vector", It happens which metronomic regularity. Just to understand the situation a little better, here’s a chart of the procedure:

http://avn.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/01234I19R.PDF

I believe that the MVA out in that area is 4000 ft, at least I don’t recall ever having been vectored at a lower altitude and I’ve been taking checkrides there for 6 years now. So typically, you’ll be vectored around at 4000’, then given a vector to intercept final which will have you intercepting the localizer well inside the FOX NDB. The profile view does not show it very well, (or at all, I guess) but the glideslope crosses the FOX NDB right about 3800 ft. For an absolute fact, if you intercept the LOC inside FOX, at 4000’, you *will* be substantially above the GS.

Unless I’m missing something, this is not a legal vector. The ATC handbook seems pretty clear on this :

5-9-1. VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE

Except as provided in para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:

a. omitted for relevance

b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude specified on the approach procedure chart.


This is not a case of the controller screwing up and giving you a bad vector. That happens, controllers make mistakes too. This happens far too regularly to be merely an error. There’s some sort of disconnect between what the controllers do and what their handbooks say they are supposed to do.

Anyway. So there you are, on a checkride, given a vector, which when compared to your RMI leaves no doubt that you will intercept the LOC inside the FOX NDB, and you are to maintain 4000’ until established on the localizer . What do you do, and why?

 

[unreal]

Regardless if I'm on a checkride or not, I wouldn't accept the approach clearance. I'd ask for another vector so that it'd be possible to intercept the glideslope from below. That'd probably impress the DPE, too.

You might also consider calling up the approach control when you get on the ground and getting an answer from them.

 

[SSDD]

If this happens on a regular basis as you've said, you(someone) needs to call the facility and discuss the problem. I would not wait until the checkride to start a pissing contest with the controller. I would follow up with an AV Hazard report to Professional Pilot magazine, they are pretty good about following up on those reports.

 

[A Squared]

Regardless if I'm on a checkride or not, I wouldn't accept the approach clearance. I'd ask for another vector so that it'd be possible to intercept the glideslope from below. That'd probably impress the DPE, too.

Good answer for a textbook world. Now, some reality: It's not a DPE, it's a company check airman who's primary objective in this situation is to get the checkride completed in as little time as possible, and to quit wasting valuable aircraft time. That is to say, the check airman isn't going to be receptive to re-vectoring to have the controller try again at getting you someplace on the localizer underneath the GS, not when in his view the situation doesn't warrant it. This check airman, (and as absurd as this sounds, I swear I am *not* making this up), has stated that vectors are merely "advisory" and that if you are being vectored for the approach, you are free to fly a heading which will put you where *you* want to be.

So, how do you respond to somone who is telling you that vectors are only advisory? What does one point to that might concince him of the error of his ways? I mean besides the obvious 91.123.


The comments about communicating with the facility are right on, my approach to the situation will involve that, but I didn't mention it as I didn't want to try to steer the discussion too much in any one direction. Good info about the Av-Hazard report, I didn't know about that. Thanks.

 

[hydroflyer]

I've had controllers give me vectors similar to that. If I catch it, I'll shallow the bank angle and stretch the turn out so I can modify the point at which I'll intercept the inbound course/localizer. It won't make a huge difference to the point where you will be out of any protected areas, but should be enough to give you a better intercept point.

 

[FN FAL]

Looks like the perfect place for a precision TLS approach.

 

[JungleJetCA]

Real world, I fly with a flight director and an autopilot so I don't know if my method applies in your situation. Once I have captured the localizer, I would descend immediately to 2400 feet if inside FOX at 1500 feet per minute. My companies policy is to be configured for landing by 1000 feet AGL and stabilized at 1000 feet if IMC and 500 if VMC. If I am still above the glideslope at the LOM, I will continue my descent to 1020 as if I am flying a localizer approach. At 1500 feet (1000 AGL) and I haven't caught the glideslope, I would execute a missed approach just because I would be pressing a poor approach. I would think legally, you fly it as a localizer down to MDA if you wanted and hope to capture the glideslope before then. I've probably had the above scenario happen to me in other cities a dozen times in 6 years of 121 flying and can see it coming before they clear me so I can anticipate chopping and dropping. But if you can't get yourself stabilized, then go around.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This check airman, (and as absurd as this sounds, I swear I am *not* making this up), has stated that vectors are merely "advisory" and that if you are being vectored for the approach, you are free to fly a heading which will put you where *you* want to be.

So, how do you respond to somone who is telling you that vectors are only advisory? What does one point to that might concince him of the error of his ways? I mean besides the obvious 91.123.

FWIW, I was taught as an instrument student that once you're "cleared for the approach", you can adjust your final vector to intercept as necessary.

At that point, I hadn't learned to say "You got a reference for that?", so I don't have any more info one way or the other.

Personally, assuming that it doesn't require more than 10-15 degrees correction, I'll go ahead and make necessary adjustments. If it's fairly obvious that it's going to be more than that, I'll make a suggestion to ATC for a heading I think might work better so that I don't have to make a second go at it. I HAVE made "unauthorized" heading adjustments on checkrides with the FAA, and it either hasn't been noticed or they felt it wasn't worth discussing.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Gorilla]

Once established localizer, clear to descend, of course. Your SA tells you where you are, and VS will probably be necessary before GS capture.

If the question is "will the CA expect me to decline the approach or go missed?" I'd say no. While your airport controllers might be messed consistently, it still happens all over the place and the approach really needs to be salvaged/executed in a safe and legal manner.

 

[nosehair]

once you're "cleared for the approach", you can adjust your final vector to intercept as necessary.

Right! Mee Too! Vector headings up to the point of the final heading to intercept the final are mandatory to keep seperation, however, once you are "cleared for approach", I take it to mean we can adjust the heading. I don't mean a whole procedure turn or nuthin', but a 10-20 degree adjustment for a 'bad vector". That's why we teach using the other navaids you have to see if the vector heading is going to intercept outside the FAF or not.

Having said all that, if it is a normal every time bad vector, a call to the approach facility would be in order.

 

[minitour]

Right! Mee Too! Vector headings up to the point of the final heading to intercept the final are mandatory to keep seperation, however, once you are "cleared for approach", I take it to mean we can adjust the heading. I don't mean a whole procedure turn or nuthin', but a 10-20 degree adjustment for a 'bad vector". That's why we teach using the other navaids you have to see if the vector heading is going to intercept outside the FAF or not.

I'm gonna agree.

"Fly heading 030 maintain 3,000 until established on the LOC cleared ILS 35 approach" If I'm going through the LOC right then, I'm going to continue the turn to get established.

Most times, however, I've been given the "if that wasn't enough, you can continue to XXX heading to intercept cleared for ___".

If I got the LOC above the GS, I'd probably proceed w/ LOC procedures (mins) and if I get the GS inside that, I would imagine I'd ride that on down...unless I have some sort of GS flag or something.

-mini

 

[A Squared]

Well, I have to say that I haven't heard that you can make up your own vectors after being cleared for the approach. Anyone got a reference for this? I'd be interested to see something official.

Sure, I can see shaving 5-10 degrees to make it come together a little better, who's going to know anyway? But substantially different? 30 degrees? Anyway, back to the example at hand, when you're being vectored for the 19R at Fairbanks, frequently you can tell long, long before your approach clearence that you're going to intercept inside FOX. I've seen it when you're headed 90 degrees to the localizer on "base" and if you just maintain that heading you'd cross the localizer inside FOX. If you adjusted your vector to incercept outside FOX you'd be flying away from the airport.

 

[nosehair]

If you adjusted your vector to incercept outside FOX you'd be flying away from the airport.

Yeah, I'm talking 'shaving', not turning so as to fly away from the airport - that's wrong. I wouldn't do it. I would definitely have a talk with approach control. I'm not a controller, but I understand they have to vector you to the approach gate which is at least a mile outside the FAF.

Of course, you are in Alaska, right?...and you know that is not really a part of the United States...well, at least not part of the rules we 'lower 48' have to comply with, so you probably have a lot of 'localisims' going on there, and having served time in Alaska, I would not try to tell a native Alaskan how to operate.

 

[A Squared]

I'm not a controller, but I understand they have to vector you to the approach gate which is at least a mile outside the FAF.

Yeah, they do, but just to clarify FOX is not the LOM, it's actually a ways out on the LOC, WEARR is the LOM. So they are vectoring you to intercept outside the approach gate, but they are doing it at an altitude that puts you well above the GS. You can get down to the GS before the LOM, but it isn't smooth, or terribly stable, and you are supposed to be on your best behavior on a checkride.

Anyway, I have an e-mail into the ATC manager at the facility, it will be interesting to see what he has to say.

You never mentioned having been Alaska before, when were you here?

 

[nosehair]

You never mentioned having been Alaska before, when were you here?

1981-84, 3 winters in a row. Talkeetna, Anchorage, Sheep Mountain, Gulkana, Valdez, and some other places with no names.

Loved it, but after a while I missed the color.

 

[AerroMatt]

FWIW, I get a similar situation when being vectored for the ILS to SNS (Salinas CA). NorCal approach has explained to me that due to the proximity of higher terrain near the localizer they are not allowed to vector me at an altitude below GS intercept. Since 90% of the time in this situation I am dealing with coastal stratus and I have visual on the higher terrain, I will ask for a lower altitude on the vector and advise NorCal that I can maintain terrain separation until established. This way I intercept localizer below GS and am legal.

Granted, I am part 91 and don't have to worry about all the Part 135 and ops specs like you do, but it may help.