Originally Posted by PiperPower (Post 562044)

This reminds me of an instrument stage check I had. I flew the ILS exactly as published, and intercepted the glideslope at the published intercept altitude.

I passed the checkride, but afterwards my examiner asked me, "why wouldn't you have just intercepted the glideslope at 3,000 since that's where we were when we intercepted the localizer? (glide slope intercept was 2,700). I was confused as to the reason he was asking me... I think I said something like, "because the approach says the GS intercept altitude is 2,700." Then he went off about how you can intercept it from any altitude, and it doesn't say anywhere that you have to be at the GS intercept altitude.

I didn't want to argue with him, especially since I passed, but I thought he was incorrect.

Originally Posted by flyandive (Post 562175)

Besides the ILS is guaranteed out to 18nm. 35 degrees either side out to 10nm, 10 degrees out to 18nm.

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy (Post 562141)

As you guys pointed out, the Glideslope does not guarantee altititude restrictions outside the FAF. Additionally, it may not be flight tested (you may get interferrence or abnormal indications). Don't confuse being told to join the localizer with an approach clearance. If you are arming the ILS to follow the localizer inbound to meet the alititude restrictions, I would say you are in violation because the aircraft isn't going to stop at the FAF altitude (remember, you weren't cleared the approach). At my company, we don't arm the ILS unless you are cleared the approach.

-Fatty

Originally Posted by fboehm (Post 562137)

I have to disagree to the timing. You do not fly an ILS to a time reference. Nor would starting the time at GS intercept work as this is typically prior to the LOC only FAF. If I am inside the FAF for an ILS and I lose GS, I am executing a missed approach. I was not cleared for the LOC approach. I did not brief a LOC approach. I will miss the approach, confer with ATC, and either return for the LOC only approach, an entirely different approach, or I will divert to my alternate. Of course if I were in an emergency situation, all bets are off and I might well consider a loc only approach. As for time, I call for time to start over the outer marker or FAF, not at GS intercept

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 562206)

That is not for the ILS, that is for the localizer beam. The GS has a different footprint, I think somebody said ten miles.

Be aware that some ILS's have coverage far exceeding the standard mins...if ATC clears you to intercept the LOC 25NM out, then that LOC is good to at least 25NM.

Originally Posted by GrUpGrDn (Post 562221)

I agree, brief one approach, conduct that approach. no timing on an ILS.

Originally Posted by onetogo (Post 562240)

Completely agree. My school tries to teach otherwise. I don't subscribe to that logic. If the GS goes dead on the ILS, I'm going missed and will try the LOC ONLY approach a second time around.

Originally Posted by onetogo (Post 562240)

Completely agree. My school tries to teach otherwise. I don't subscribe to that logic. If the GS goes dead on the ILS, I'm going missed and will try the LOC ONLY approach a second time around.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 562257)

Converting an ILS to a LOC on the fly is an old-school GA concept, once you get into turbine flying you will not be doing that :rolleyes: