Arriving from the east (EGKA, SAM) I would have expected to be descended to the platform (2200ft) before the LOC.
Instead I got 3400ft, then when flying south of the LOC I got a vector to the LOC, which I intercepted (still below the GS at that point, so ok), then at something like 10D I got a “descend 2500ft”.
This is most unusual; one is normally flying level after the LOC intercept, all the way to the GS intercept.
I didn’t descend fast enough down to 2500ft and ended up above the GS as a result, which was fixed by a faster descent, which delivered an interesting data point: the KFC225 will intercept the GS from above if already on LOC.
Did you catch GS with VS/PIT modes? or hand flew on CWS?
Arriving from the east (EGKA, SAM) I would have expected to be descended to the platform (2200ft) before the LOC.
There is 1200ft AMSL antenna with big arrow at 10DME, on cold days like Sunday, they won’t vector at 2200ft on Radar in that spot with barely 1000ft above it 
The “3400ft, 2500ft altitudes” are in-line with MVA chart coming from south
The IAP is not charted thus. The whole inbound portion is charted at 2200ft. So you can do that only if flying procedurally, not vectored.
Very strange getting a descent while LOC established.
Very strange getting a descent while LOC established.
Not my experience. Not the best practice really, but happens quite often, the more so in southern EU. As pointed out by Ibra, controllers use the MVA to issue descent clearances.
Quite common for example to hear “xxxxx descend to 2000ft, continue with the glide when established”, even if already riding the LOC.
GS intercept from above is something one tries to avoid, the more so with a heavy jet, and with some experience of the environment can be predicted…
Also good to know beforehand if your AP is able to intercept from above
Dan wrote:
Quite common for example to hear “xxxxx descend to 2000ft, continue with the glide when established”, even if already riding the LOC.
Same day as Peter, as far as I remember that’s the clearance I got: at the same time, turn from base to heading to intercept, descent to XXXX ft and descend on the glide when established. I think I intercepted from below still. Maybe I was just vectored farther away or descended faster than Peter. <shrug>
It happens to have an altitude assigned that is higher than plate altitude, especially when two aircraft report LOC established, the assumption is you are still 1000ft separated by radar and you should not descend on him unless he intercepts glideslope first…I recall Thames/Heathrow Radar was really pissed off when I left 2800ft to 1800ft right after being LOC established to Biggin 
It’s confusing as one end up catching a falling knife on final above the glide with botched ILS, that was in a draggy piston, I can’t imagine how jets manage it?
Ibra wrote:
I can’t imagine how jets manage it?
Can’t speak for the lighter jets, but IIRC Airbus (or company) SOPs dictated not to use OP DES, but VS to come back on the glide. And of course make use of all the anchors, if at all possible. Flap speeds can be very restrictive when you need them to slow down, and airbrakes (or speedbrakes) almost useless at speeds < 300kts. All whilst respecting the different gates and keep the FDM happy.
The go-around might of course be the better option, save for the reporting, economy and environment… the shortest GA, followed by a tight visual circuit to land, can easily consume 600kg of Jet A-1.
Radar descents whilst localiser established can be incredibly common in certain locations especially when arriving from certain directions. It may well be the case that you can capture the localiser some 15-20nm out but terrain can prevent further descent until closer. I can’t say that I see any issue with it in itself, although if it leaves you above the glideslop then yes there’s a bit of extra work required, but such is life.
From a commercial jet point of view, despite it being taught at CPL/IR level that capturing the glideslope from above is to be avoided, it is actually very common, especially with so many airports now mandating and monitoring CDA’s (note, different from CDFA when talking about a non precision approach) and idle thrust descents being desired for noise and fuel burn reasons, this will often mean capturing slightly from above.
Can’t speak for the lighter jets, but IIRC Airbus (or company) SOPs dictated not to use OP DES, but VS to come back on the glide. And of course make use of all the anchors, if at all possible.
I was referring to Biggin ILS21 which barely has 3nm between FAF and DH (4nm to threshold), if one is still above glideslope past FAF then their approach is toasted? the “1000ft agl gate” to get stable approach in IMC is 1600ft amsl where FAF is at 1800ft amsl
The vectored ILS is “shorty” (vectors to 6nm) and ths missed MAP is “sporty” (uses VOR/DME and ILS/DME), to add a bit of the fun, Biggin approach has no radar, Thames/Heathrow does Radar vectoring in tight airspace then one gets to swap to two other frequencies for approach & tower in less than 3nm
@Ibra, I’ve been at Biggin Hill once, many many moons ago, VFR in a SEP, so not really familiar
Reading your description reminded me of LCY, with which I was very familiar. I notice they’ve introduced RNAVs for the arrivals, but I recall several approaches flying a downwind followed by the ILS09 on very tight and vague vectors, the FAF being at 3.4D, in horrendous conditions. More than once did subtle heading corrections by the crew save the approach, I shall write no more.
But then it was all good fun, and reminds one of the difference between a private, and a pro pilot: disregarding the weather, the pro has to go…
Until some obscure volcano decides to spit a little bit of ash cloud that is
