Back to Board Index
Back to Board Index
Forum help
| FAO Christian Smith and Joe Clifford + ATCOs. Ref | |
Mick McG   10th Apr 2012 18:03:41 | H'o fellas,
Do you remember the thread about Direct Arrival and NDB phraseology a few weeks back? I wrote, "As a radar controller, you simply vector the aircraft onto the localiser or, as in the direct arrival case, get him to do it himself, and then tell him to “descend with the glidepath”. If there is nothing to affect his descent on the glidepath and you know this in advance then you can tell him, “When established on localiser, descend on glidepath”. Never “cleared for the ILS approach”! Well, guess what! The CAA are going to make me eat my words (no change there) - with effect from 8 Jun 2012 the phrase, "Cleared ILS approach" will be accepted iaw details outlined in the link below. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493SupplementaryInstruction201203.pdf Best Ones, M |
Dave Wave   10th Apr 2012 18:07:18 | I always thought the CAA followed this forum!! |
| Christian Smith 10th Apr 2012 18:55:41 | Lol- I think Dave might be right!
I've been teaching descend ILS for a couple of months now- but they're changing it even further than expected! Terrible! |
Joe Clifford  10th Apr 2012 20:39:02 | *Speechless* What on earth will be next! |
| Christian Smith 10th Apr 2012 21:52:31 | I must say, passing elevation with the QNH makes perfect sense, but, if we just add this to the ATIS surely we get around it? :) |
Laurence Woodside 10th Apr 2012 22:26:36 | Ok so we go with Europe and the flow. But when do you call "cleared for the ILS Approach". When the aircraft is established on the final track? The glide is clear to that aircraft?
Listening to our friends in Dublin it seems to be whenever, 1. RYR 578 Two Three track miles to run Cleared ILS Approach ryw(x) Descend with the profile. 2. Shamrock 236 Turn right 260 Descend Alt 3000ft, Cleared ILS Approach rwy (x) (didn't catch the distance to run, but clearly the aircraft still has to make its final turn to establish yet has been cleared for the approach) So the question is there a definitive answer? Couldnt find an answer in the CAP supplement |
| Joe Clifford 10th Apr 2012 22:52:16 | Laurence,
if I'm understanding it correctly, if the controller gives an aircraft a level that is the same or less than that published in the approach document, wether that be ILS Approach or MSL, the term Cleared ILS/MSL Approach will be used, in the case that the controller gets the aircraft the close on the localised from a level that is higher than that on the approach document, the term Decend with the Glide Path will be used. Basically from the term 'Cleared ILS Approach' to be used, the aircraft MUST be at either the level displayed on the approach chart or below, however not so low that it is less than what's documented on the Survalience Minimum Altitude Chart. Joe :-) |
| Joe Clifford 10th Apr 2012 23:20:39 | Ill try and write out what I mean, i terms of a Flybe Aircraft Coming in to land runway 22 at London Stansted. 'P' stands for Pilot. 'A' stands for ATC
Bearing in mind the approach chart shows that the aircraft should start the approach at 2500ft. http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-E65D2014D1516AFF07CE4E23E98E0E1B/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGSS_8-4_en_2012-02-09.pdf (This Bit below, stays the same, no matter what level the plane establishes at) P - Essex Radar, Jersey 3PR Direct Barkway Flight Level 60 A - Jersey 3PR, Essex Radar, leave Barkway heading 070 degrees. For Spacing speed 220 knots, vectoring ILS approach runway 22. P - Leave Barkway 070. 220 Knots. Vectoring for ILS runway 22, Jersey 3PR A - Jersey 3PR, 25 track miles to run, descent Altitude 4000ft, QNH 1014. P - 25 Miles to run, descend 4000, QNH 1014, Jersey 3PR A - Jersey 3PR, Contact Stansted Director, frequency 126.950 P - Director 126.950, Jersey 3PR, Tut tar --------------------------------------------- (This Example Includes the aircrafts that level is lower/the same as, that on the approach chart) P - Stansted director, Jesery 3PR, with you. A - Jersey 3PR, Stansted Director, turn right heading 135 degrees, descend altitude 2000ft (Lower than the 2500 on the chart above), QNH 1014, Airfield elevation 348ft P - Right 135 degrees, Descend 2000ft, QNH 1014, Elevation 348. Jersey 3PR A - Jersey 3PR, turn right heading 195 degrees (Within the 40 degrees that you aim to establish an aircraft on) report established on the localised runway 22. P - Right 195 degrees, report established runway 22, Jersey 3PR P - Established on the Localiser runway 22, Jersey 3PR A - Jersey 3PR, cleared ILS Approach runway 22. -------------------------------------------------- (This Example Includes the aircrafts that level is lower/the same as, that on the approach chart) P - Stansted director, Jesery 3PR, with you. A - Jersey 3PR, Stansted Director, turn right heading 135 degrees, descend altitude 3000ft (higher than the 2500 on the chart above), QNH 1014, Airfield elevation 348ft P - Right 135 degrees, Descend 3000ft, QNH 1014, Elevation 348. Jersey 3PR A - Jersey 3PR, turn right heading 195 degrees (Within the 40 degrees that you aim to establish an aircraft on) report established on the localised runway 22. P - Right 195 degrees, report established runway 22, Jersey 3PR P - Established on the Localiser runway 22, Jersey 3PR A - Jersey 3PR, descend on the glide path runway 22, QNH 1014 Hopefully That made it a little clearer Joe |
| John Godfrey 10th Apr 2012 23:31:02 | More to come with EASA transitioning as the authority and the CAA will just be the enforcers no longer pulling the regulatory strings and striping pilots pockets bare :p |
| Christian Smith 11th Apr 2012 01:11:32 | Maybe I'm just interpretating it wrong... but I can't see that the pilot must have the localiser before being cleared- only that this may aid situational awareness if requested.
To add some context Laurence. If this was at Edinburgh, Runway 24, Closing vector 250 at altitude 4000ft for a 15 mile final, the pilot would Descend with the glide path as the final vector given brings the aircraft in 1000ft above the published procedure in other words he is picking up the glidepath earlier than published. Same situation, but Runway 06, 4000ft, The pilot is issued a vector of 050 from around LANAK, this would give about a 16 mile final, the a/c would be therefore be "Cleared ILS Approach" as the approach chart for the published procedure starts at 4000ft and this is the altitude of the aicraft- therefore he will not begin to descend from 4000ft until he hits the glidepath which will be alligned with the chart, hence, knowingly or not, he is descending with a procedure only. To me, seems like a faff! Why this isn't good enough for a compromise is beyond me: "Ryanair 27 Alpha, Established Localiser Runway 24, 9 Miles" "Ryanair 27 Alpha, Descend ILS" |
| Christian Smith 11th Apr 2012 01:12:43 | Arrr just noticed that Joe shared the link for the approach he was referring to. BED TIME.
We've got about 8 weeks to worry about the implementation yet :p |
| Mick McG 11th Apr 2012 22:13:43 | H'o again chaps,
This new phraseology is an additional tool in your bag and shouldn't really worry us too much. However, there are a couple of comments & examples above that I think might need some clarification (and you know me, I just can’t let it go): Point 1: Christian wrote, “I must say, passing elevation with the QNH makes perfect sense, but, if we just add this to the ATIS surely we get around it?” Mick says: Elevation info isn't routinely passed in this instance, however the aerodrome and threshold elevation must be available on request (in case the pilot spills his coffee on the approach plate and can’t read it). For a list of what should be included in an ATIS broadcast see the CAP493 Section 3 Chapter 1 Page 10 Para 11.7. Note: Elevation is not on there. Point 2: Laurence wrote, “But when do you call "cleared for the ILS Approach". When the aircraft is established on the final track? The glide is clear to that aircraft?...... So the question is there a definitive answer? Couldn’t find an answer in the CAP supplement” Mick says: Deciphering CAA speak is an art in itself. There’s no set point where you’d give the clearance. It can be anywhere/time providing the conditions set out in (a) and (b) below have been met. RT Phraseology and Procedure In addition to current RT phraseology and the associated procedures, the UK CAA now permits controllers to clear an aircraft for either an ILS or MLS approach when the aircraft is being vectored to final approach provided that: a) The aircraft is given descent to a level that is either the same as that published in the instrument approach procedure at the final approach fix; or b) The aircraft is given a descent to a level lower than the level published in the instrument approach procedure at the final approach fix, but not lower than that published in that aerodrome’s Surveillance Minimum Altitude Chart (SMAC). Point 3: Joe’s example. Actually, if you transcribed a pucca controller/pilot exchange this may well be typical of what it is actually said on the r/t, but for demo purposes there are a couple of errors and I’m a picky tw4t. Eg “…..track miles to run”, should really be “… track miles to TOUCHDOWN” “…..descend altitude 4000ft…”, should be “…descend TO altitude 4000ft” “…..turn right heading 195 degrees…”, should be “…turn right heading 1-9-5…” (no need for “degrees” if vector ends with 5). And finally, as stated above, there is no mandatory requirement (yet) for the aerodrome/threshold elevation to be passed with the QNH (the phraseology table includes it inside [brackets] to illustrate that it’s an “as required” item. You’ll notice none of the Kennington Radar/BIGJET examples in the Supplementary Instruction include it. That’s my lot for now chaps. Hope to catch up later this week – looks like I missed a great event the other night too (Bishal, if you read this – great vid m8!) Clear Skies fella’s M |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 00:09:21 | Thanks for the clear up! :)
And you, Picky.... Surely not! I certainly did notice the lack of elevation in the examples once I read the document all the way through this morning :) |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 01:08:33 | Mick, 1 more question, I thought, as I do, to search "Cleared ILS" on CAP413, take a look at page 113, 5th transmission - why is this mentioned? |
| John Godfrey 12th Apr 2012 10:24:51 | So as I understand it, at the bottom is the previous position from CAP 413 about the reasoning for having a specific descent instruction for an ILS approach.
On grounds of safety it would seem that's why this procedure was adopted. Does safety now takes a back seat? Is it the case that when an aircraft is at the final approach fix, at or below the published level for glide slope intercept, he will receive the cleared ILS approach instruction? Conversely if he is above the published intercept level he will receive the descend with the glide path instruction? PANS-ATM See UK AIP GEN 1.7 Phraseology ‘CLEARED FOR ILS APPROACH’ is used in the UK only for self-positioned approaches. For radar-positioned ILS approaches in the UK, pilots will be instructed: 'When established on the localiser, descend on the glidepath...' Due to procedure design and airspace complexity, along with lessons learned from flight safety related incidents and occurrences, the UK has elected to enhance safety by adopting unambiguous phraseology that includes a positive descent instruction to ensure that descent is initiated only when it is safe to do so. |
| Mick McG 12th Apr 2012 21:48:44 | H’o again Fella’s,
Christian, couldn’t find the CAP 413 reference on p113 but I’m assuming it’s the one in Chapter 6 Page 5 (PDF p139/270)? If that’s the one you mean then do you remember in that other thread I mentioned that the “Cleared ILS approach” phrase was a procedural term? Well, this is the example - notice the ATC agency is “Kennington Approach” not “Kennington Radar”. John, regarding safety taking a back seat – Nah, I don’t think that’s the case here. It’s more likely this has come about as a result of a safety review of procedures. It happens from time to time and this particular one has been scrutinised by the proper bods that decide these things. Without knowing the details I can only guess that they’ve decided the revised wording isn’t going to change the price of eggs for the controller, it will likely reduce the r/t loading in a busy pattern and that in itself could make it safer. Ok, the question about when you say “….cleared ILS approach…”. As long as you’re NOT doing anything wacky with the aircraft, like telling him to establish 40miles away or diving him down onto the glidepath from above, you could use it instead of saying, “…when established on the localiser, descend with the glide-path…” or “….report localiser established” followed by, “…descend with the glidepath…”. So, normal vectoring rules and techniques to get the aircraft onto a nice closing heading for the localiser (something like a 30-40° cut) to intercept between 12nm and 8nm at the normal pattern altitude. At the point where I pass the closing heading, I might say something like, “[C/s]; Turn left heading 2-9-0 degrees. Closing localiser from the left; Cleared ILS approach runway 2-6; QNH 9-9-3 hectopascals”. Piece of cake! Hope this helps. M PS. John, you're right. If the aircraft is above the normal FAF intercept altitude when it establishes on the localiser it's back to the old phraseology, "descend with the glidepath". Cheers, M |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 22:03:31 | Correct! That is the pag, and the ATC Unit also. And yes, it is used in a procedural approach... So why did the CAA decide it was not ok to use the term, except in this way! The mind boggles!
I'd also like to ask you, in reality, due you ever pass the aircraft through the localiser before establishing, such as a 270 degree turn back around for seperation? |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 22:04:15 | ^Yes, I do need to preview posts before submitting in future :p |
| Mick McG 12th Apr 2012 22:40:34 | "So why did the CAA decide it was not ok to use the term, except in this way! The mind boggles"
I'm not sure tbh. Probably goes back to the days when radar was in its infancy and procedural control was the dominant method of separation. It'll have made sense at the time. "...in reality, due you ever pass the aircraft through the localiser before establishing, such as a 270 degree turn back around for seperation?" lol. The answer (of course) is YES and NO! You might need to take the aircraft through the localiser for umpteen reasons; aircraft too high, poor spacing, conflictors - happens to us poor folks who don't have CAS all the time. But a 270 degree turn back on? Gutsy move man! Not one I've ever tried I have to say. The CAP and SI mentions vectoring through the localiser because it is so common, but you have to tell the pilot what you're planning to do so he knows not to risk his life making a split ar$e turn when he notices the needles zooming across his HSI. At our place we often get traffic hot and high from the POL direction and so it's not unusual for us to have to give a "dogleg" to increase the track distance in order to achieve a reasonable descent rate. The traffic situation often makes it necessary to take the aircraft through the extended centreline before bringing him back on from the other side - but it's not normally a viscous turn (you've c0ck3d something up if it is). Cheers pal, M |
| Mick McG 12th Apr 2012 22:44:24 | ^^ A viscous turn? Mmmm! delete "viscous" insert "vicious"
:-) |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 22:59:35 | "Gutsy move man! Not one I've ever tried I have to say."
-When you're reading to leave air trafficing maybe one for your last day ;) lol. 270 turn... Manchester event, 1 a/c rolling out, 2 a/c on the glide, 3 closing the localiser, and I had to do this to establish seperation and bring him back in number 5 :p Whoops! I presume in this circumstance you'd send him for a go around, but how can you ensure vertical seperation from the a/c ahead? Would you need to give him about a 30 degree turn right or left too? |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 23:00:32 | Yes when you're reading! Not ready, Reading! Please let us have an edit button Dave!!!! |
| Mick McG 12th Apr 2012 23:09:54 | Well, obviously it depends on where your other traffic is (you wouldn't do this if you had transit traffic traffic 1500ft above) but the quickest way to achieve separation, "Avoiding action. Climb immediately to altitude.....ft. Traffic was..........".
Once you've got your standard separation then you sort out the sequencing. However, sounds like you had too many in, too close. When it's busy like that, get the stacks going and peel them off one by one using speed control to maintain track distance. You're working like a one-armed paper hanger but it looks so slick! :) |
| Christian Smith 12th Apr 2012 23:22:48 | Stacking couldn't agree more- but where's the fun in that, for the pilots I mean! I did resort to that in the end though! We had a good 30 a/c to land!
Hope to see you VFR Sunday Afternoon Mick! :) |
| John Godfrey 13th Apr 2012 17:25:37 | Brilliant Mick thanks for the info and clarification :) |
You need to Log on to post a reply. |
Forum help