Question for an Approach Controller?

S

SierraPilot123

Well-Known Member
I was always taught in flight school that it was the preferred method to intercept the Glide Slope (GS) from below. Reason #1. to avoid a false GS signal and #2. to avoid high descent rates that can leave you in an unsterilized state. Does approach controller's theory also teach to intercept from below when vectoring?

At SFO we are getting left high. We are held on top of the Glide Slope, than given a last minute descent hoping to capture it in time. IF you are a very seasoned pilot you can pull it off, but most newbies struggle or miss it all together. Also, the aircraft's autopilot won't capture the GS from above.

Recently we had to go missed because of this reason. Here are the details. ATC: fly heading 310 to intercept 28R LOC maintain 4,000 until established, cleared approach. At this point we were intercepting inside DUMBA. We are supposed to cross DUMBA at 4,100. Therefore, we are already starting the approach high.

Just as we intercept I scroll the alt. alerter to 3,200 and prompt the captain to get down because we were only a few miles away from CEPIN. Just then ATC says: maintain 180 Kt. In other words, now it is even hard to get down fast because we have to slow down too! Flaps go out. We slow, but we are well above GS and the descent rate is not cutting it. ATC: maintain 160 kts. We are at 2,400 ft. crossing Axmul, we supposed to be at 1,800 for GS intercept. I speak up to controller "You left us pretty high". ATC sends us missed.

What can I do to resolve this issue? It happens more than it should be happening. The Captains just listen to the ATC like they are god and don't think for themselves sometimes. But it is our jobs as pilots to let ATC know that it isn't working or that we need something different. Instead they push the limits to try to pull it off, and the cycle continues. "Well the last guy was able to do it". I'm not sure we would have made it even without the speed restrictions.

Advice and words of wisdom are appreciated.

photo-2.png
 
Your Capts need to learn to say "unable" early on. ATC needs to move airplanes. ATC forcing an issue that results in sending airplanes around only makes for more work for ATC. A few go-arounds or "unables" will force ATC to back off a tad. At least in theory....

This reminds of of my days as a lowly GS-7 ATA at LAX tracon. One of my jobs was to record the arrival ATIS based on the weather updates from the NWS. LAX really likes to stay west flow. One day the NWS report said winds 070 at 11 and so that's what I said on the new ATIS. A few pilots apparently complained to the approach controller that west flow was unacceptable with those winds so the controller rather angrily asked me to change the ATIS winds so the pilots would stop complaining.

Not knowing any better....I did....

Moral of the story. You know what it takes to get LAX runways turned around? It's not what's on the ATIS so much as a couple of go-arounds or folks refusing to take off due to tailwinds. At it's amazing how Capts listen to the guy in front of them. If the guy in front of them says they aren't going, chances are it will start a chain reaction of other guys not going, and then it forces the issue to ATC to pay attention to mother nature, or to the forces of gravity.....
 
DE727UPS said:
Your Capts need to learn to say "unable" early on. ATC needs to move airplanes. ATC forcing an issue that results in sending airplanes around only makes for more work for ATC. A few go-arounds or "unables" will force ATC to back off a tad. At least in theory....

This reminds of of my days as a lowly GS-7 ATA at LAX tracon. One of my jobs was to record the arrival ATIS based on the weather updates from the NWS. LAX really likes to stay west flow. One day the NWS report said winds 070 at 11 and so that's what I said on the new ATIS. A few pilots apparently complained to the approach controller that west flow was unacceptable with those winds so the controller rather angrily asked me to change the ATIS winds so the pilots would stop complaining.

Not knowing any better....I did....

Moral of the story. You know what it takes to get LAX runways turned around? It's not what's on the ATIS so much as a couple of go-arounds or folks refusing to take off due to tailwinds. At it's amazing how Capts listen to the guy in front of them. If the guy in front of them says they aren't going, chances are it will start a chain reaction of other guys not going, and then it forces the issue to ATC to pay attention to mother nature, or to the forces of gravity.....
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this a little bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OfoBywPrCw

Someone had to say unable first!
 
Sierra,

controllers are taught to ALWAYS allow the pilot to intercept the GS from below, if this is a common occurance at SFO than you should have your pilot group talk to the NATCA rep at Norcal Tracon about this.one thing that was ingrained into us at chicago tracon was to give the A/C a good approach and never get an aircraft in a position where thay were high on the GS and you were giveing multiple speed changes. now i dont know what the airspace is like for SFO but what is going is very poor controlling. my advise is that if it keeps going after your group has brought it up to ATC would be to refuse the approach and request to be re vectored.controllers are quite a lazy bunch and if thay have to keep working the same aircraft over and over theyll get the message and get there crap together and do it the right way.

OG
 
You didn't mention it on your post, so I'm going to ask... Did you guys try dropping the gear? Here's how I look at it when I'm in a situation similar to yours: if I have the gear down, the power to idle, speed brakes out, flaps down, and the speed as high as the situation will allow me (in this case, ATC told you 180), and I still can't get a descent rate high enough to capture the G/S and be stable by 1000', then there's nothing else I could have done to make it work. Tell ATC that the vectors given made you unable to complete the approach, and try again.

I've found that in the jets I've flown, putting the gear down does you wonders in terms of increasing your descent rate and/or slowing you down, but for some reason many folks are afraid to move away from the "standard" profiles.
 
I appreciate all the replies Confirms my original thoughts that we need to speak up more when it isn't working out.

z987k, I've done the MFR app your linked. It is quite doable with proper planning. And if you screw it up its all your fault bc you are pilot nav the entire time. Just have to be gear down and flaps out as you come over the mountains and power idle. I've also see a number of captains misjudge this and require a 360 to get down. Never in IMC luckily. The SFO app is much more mild but you are the mercy of controller's vectors and speed restrictions.

DE727UPS, interesting story. I've seen the runways switched around a few times at LA. Just takes one person to speak up. And btw I threw in that "unable" to my brief to the captain today. I said at any point we feel like we are struggling to get down and they give us another speed restriction I'm just going to say unable. He was ok with that.

Queeno good to know. I wasn't sure if that was a flight school thing or something that they actually trained ATC to do. I'd get our pilot group involved but they wouldn't take the time to care. Most figure they can, will or at least try to do whatever ATC tells them. I've seen way worse and our pilots don't speak up at all. They believe they are all mighty.

sigler, you're right, the gear makes a huge difference. In this case we were 15 miles out or so and the captain didn't drop the gear. He should have. He got behind on the approach, along with the bad vectors. He was over-loaded and resorted to our standard training profiles I am sure. In which case we don't drop the gear until we are one dot below GS. In this case we never were below GS. It is what I would have done, but it wasn't me leg.

To make it down with bad vectors from above GS I usually hit IAS mode, drop the gear, drop the flaps, power idle. This will drop you as fast as possible. But it doesn't matter how configured you are, you aren't dropping all that fast when you have to hold 160KIAS to FAF.
 
Ya, I liked those because it's roughly the same rate of descent required as your scenario. Very possible, just have to think outside the box a bit depending on the airplane you're flying.
 
G/S can be effectively intercepted from above. PAR handoff at Miramar for example has you well above G/S coming out of MVA due to the terrain east of the field. For this reason, I just go ahead and dirty up w/n 10 miles, and then just set like 5 deg nose down on the HUD/velocity vector once they tell me to begin descent. Nothing crazy......works just fine even observing the "minute to live" rule. Granted my aircraft comes down like a rock when dirty and at idle, but you really don't need any crazy descent rate to make it work as long as you are under 200 kts or so.
 
SFO is only able to flow the amount of traffic that they do by using simultaneous parallel visual approaches, and they tend to "slam-dunk" everyone in with last minute descents due to SFO's proximity to traffic from OAK/SJC and noise abatement. Sounds like this guy was still mentally in visual approach/slam-dunk mode. Doesn't make it right, just trying to provide some context.
 
Firstly, we are taught to provide vectors that intercept the glideslope from below on instrument approaches. Secondly, maybe the controller had to turn you for traffic and thought you would increase your rate of descent when you were issued the approach clearance. Finally, I've posted the most current approach plate from AirNav for you to have in the future.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    316.8 KB · Views: 376
was it a visual approach? We get left high all the time going in on the Tip Toe to 28L. Ive never been left high when doing an actual ILS in IMC conditions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top