…shall enable…
Fortunately, there are still humans down there who don’t get it right every time, every day. Otherwise we wouldn’t need humans up here who will find a way to fly a stable approach from a poor intercept. Hopefully for another 13 years, or I will not get my full pension 
ICAO DOc 4444 (PANS-ATM) says:
8.9.3.6 Aircraft vectored for final approach should be given a heading or a series of headings calculated to close with the final approach track. The final vector shall enable the aircraft to be established in level flight on the final approach track prior to intercepting the specified or nominal glide path if an MLS, ILS or radar approach is to be made, and should provide an intercept angle with the final approach track of 45 degrees or less.
Schiphol, Amsterdam uses (or used) glide slope capturing from above. It was a contributing factor in the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 1951. It was commented in the Mayday series: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18vk8d_mayday-s10e06-who-s-in-control_shortfilms, about 18:45 minutes. At 19:08 minutes they say “It’s a common practice at Schiphol because it gets planes to the runway faster”. Maybe they changed it after the crash.
It is policy, but unless you complain, the practice won’t stop being common. If you want to remain anonymous, use a NASA form to report it each time it occurs.
My company monitors it and sends over management pilots for discussions with ATC every now and again.
Somebody ought to tell the controllers at IAD, JFK, MIA and BOS!
It is policy, but unless you complain, the practice won’t stop being common. If you want to remain anonymous, use a NASA form to report it each time it occurs.
your autopilot (DFC100) will capture the GS from above without a problem, just like my DFC90 (which is essentially the same)
Yes, I did check that via COPA to be sure.
Learning all the little bits and pieces out there is fun.
Stephan,
your autopilot (DFC100) will capture the GS from above without a problem, just like my DFC90 (which is essentially the same)
Stephan, there are numerous reasons to vector you to a point inside the FAF. The most common ones are late requests by tower (e.g. to allow for departures), separation issues (e.g. having to vector through the LOC because the preceding traffic reduced unexpectedly) or simple screw ups. If I have to do this I will a) tell you and b) give you a lower altitude as soon as (if at all) possible, so that you can start your descend before reaching the LOC. If I can´t give you a lower altitude I would expect you to configure the aircraft accordingly in order to be able to catch the GS from above. If unable just tell me and you´ll get another lineup.
As for continous descend operations: We´ve been doing them for a number of years now, mostly vectored approaches, occasionally on the published procedure. Passing FL200 the given distance is still somewhat inaccurate, say plus minus 10 miles till touchdown, but coming down to FL70 it gets pretty good. Regular customers have become very good doing CDAs, with one sticking out doing it on almost every approach. On most of the approaches the aircraft are at GS altitude or slightly below when turning final, capturing it from above on final doesn´t happen too often.
I’m wondering, if I should help the ATCO so that I end up before the FAF (the approach gate mentioned above) by requesting a slightly different vector? My equipment shows me where I will intercept. ATCO and pilot are supposed to be a team so helping each other both ways might be appreciated.
How do ATCOs determine the course they tell a pilot to intercept the localizer? I’ve been to a 2hrs shift with an ATCO at Langen, Germany, but he was working departure. Do they have a tool that calculates the vector or is it more like an educated guess?
Experience. The radar shows the past and projected course over ground and the rest is a guess. The interception course doesn’t have to be exact. Frequently ATC ask the pilot for the present heading to get a feel for the wind vector.
