Thanks for the comments and advice. With hindsight, I should have flown my own intercept, rather than an acceptance of a vector which was not going to get me to where I needed to be. One question though, under a radar control; service, and receiving vectors, can you at LOC intercept stage, say I don’t like???? i.e. fly your own intercept course.
One question though, under a radar control; service, and receiving vectors, can you at LOC intercept stage, say I don’t like???? i.e. fly your own intercept course.
No but you can request something different. Of course you can’t intercept until cleared to intercept either even if you go through the LOC.
You can say what you like to the controller, but if you are under radar control you have to fly the clearance you are given. If it’s a radar heading you fly that, If he clears you to intercept the localiser without giving you a heading you can do your own thing. You can’t follow the glideslope till you are cleared for the approach.
An interesting Q might be whether, in a scenario where the vector given will obviously cut it too close, and the ATCO is too busy on the radio with somebody else, you can creatively amend it by a few degrees… 
If he clears you to intercept the localiser without giving you a heading you can do your own thing
I don’t recall ever getting a clearance to intercept the localiser without one of
and your scenario appears to be only possible in the procedural approach case.
I wouldn’t advise that – you could end up somewhere in holding 
There is of course the radar monitored self positioning approach as well. Some places are happier with this than others but it is not uncommon for this to happen where I am based in the UK. tends to be given as something like “Continue own navigation, radar monitored approach, maintain 4000’ until advised” and normally once a bit closer “Cleared approach” or “Intercept LLZ from the left report established”
In the US, things are very structured. ATC has limits on where they can intercept the final approach course including the maximum angle of intercept and minimum distance to the FAF. Generally the angle must not exceed 30 degrees and the distance is at least 3 NM from the FAF. There are exceptions that permit intercepts closer than 3 NM on an ILS, but the intercept angle is then limited to a maximum of 20 degrees.
In the US, things are very structured. ATC has limits on where they can intercept the final approach course including the maximum angle of intercept and minimum distance to the FAF. Generally the angle must not exceed 30 degrees and the distance is at least 3 NM from the FAF. There are exceptions that permit intercepts closer than 3 NM on an ILS, but the intercept angle is then limited to a maximum of 20 degrees.
Question to the more experienced European IFR pilots: do we have the very same rules in European airspace? I would expect that to be the case – or am I wrong?
I am remembering my recent experience of being vectored behind the FAF two times in a row on that RNAV approach into EDTY. It still bugs me a bit and would like to know what I should expect.
NCY that’s interesting. Is that category specific??
NCY that’s interesting. Is that category specific??
No. It is independent of category of aircraft, if that is what you meant by category. A vector to intercept a final approach course is not a clearance direct to a fix. It involves a heading to fly until the course is intercepted. Direct to a fix involves the aircraft using their own navigation capability to navigate to the fix. In the US, an aircraft may be cleared direct to an IF or a step down fix between an IF and the FAF. In the former case, the intercept angle can be up to 90 degrees and turn anticipation is assumed. In the latter case, the join angle is limited to 30 degrees.
