I agree, you are either on vector OR on approach, cleared for approach = no more vector = you can fly approach heading & altitudes
You do get vectored 1000ft higher than FAF/FAP platform near 2NM at +140KTS ground speed, that needs -1200fpm ASAP on cruise to sort it out, you can’t go like that past FAP !
I think it’s poor airmanship not to own vertical profile: just sit there and hope ATC plan work for you or GP smile at you open arms at FAP as it’s easy to botch RV+ILS due to loss of situational awareness when ATC is flying aircraft (if you can’t predict the next ATC heading & altitude from surveillance chart, traffic information or airspace shape then you are lost deep down), it does happens from time to time (e.g. tailwind, keep your speed, keep you very high, non-pressurized), the PIC has to do whatever it takes to revert to plates headings & altitudes ASAP to regain his SA before FAF before flying the fun part after FAF 
This was 9deg intercept 
gallois wrote:
No I meant being vectored and cleared for the approach are contradictory.
I seem to recall that the last vector, the one to actually intercept the localizer, sometimes includes the clearance for the specific approach.
It is simpler in the US. A clearance for the approach allows descent only on a charted route such as an airway, feeder route, or segment of an approach. We do have a 25NM MSA on both conventional and RNAV approaches, but they are not allowed to be used except in an emergency. Also, we have a TAA (terminal Arrival Area) that looks like a segmented MSA, but is considered as an RNAV feeder segment of the approach, and if one is charted, then descent to the TAA segment altitude is allowed (and assumed) once cleared for the approach and inside the TAA segment. All this grew out of the crash of TWA Flight 514 into Dulles on Dec 1,1974.
NCYankee wrote:
It is simpler in the US. A clearance for the approach allows descent only on a charted route such as an airway, feeder route, or segment of an approach.
I’m certain that’s true in Europe as well. People are making this more complicated than it has to be by confusing altitudes for obstacle clearance with altitudes for ATC clearances, i.e. for separation purposes. If ATC don’t want you to descend “early”, they’ll say something like “… when intercepting localiser cleared for straight-in ILS approach.” It doesn’t help that ATC practises (and even phraseology to some extent) varies.
People are definitely making it more complicated than it is. Cleared for the approach, follow the approach as published both laterally and vertically.
It is up to the pilot to calculate his TOD and request it as needed.
If you can be at MSA/TAA within the 25/30nm area and make sure you are not going to hit any obstacles on the way down to it.
It only gets difficult if you can not get approved to descend at your TOD.
Vectoring is a totally different thing and relies much more on ATC clearances.
Phraseology should be the same throughout EASA land which should be the same for the most part as ICAO but both ATSOs and pilots are human and under stress may not always use the agreed wording.
Cleared for the approach, follow the approach as published both laterally and vertically.
Sure, but if you are at 3000ft and the platform is 2000ft, you have to descend It is simply not authorised to fly an ILS (or any other IAP) commencing at a higher platform, although with ILS it will obviously work (within limits) provided you are sure you will still intercept the GS from below; this is basically what airliners to, when doing a continuous descent (watched the A320 last night with a GPS).
If you are vectored to the LOC then ATC are required to descend you to the platform, otherwise it doesn’t make sense, because as soon as they say “cleared for the approach” (which they have to otherwise you must fly through the LOC) you would be doing an uncleared descent while vectoring.
This discussion is a good example of how we can make things complicated on a question asked by somebody who is new to (instrument) flying.
In my limited experience, in practice things are extremely simple: In every single actual situation where I got the “cleared for the approach” while on vectors, before these words I got something like “Turn left to heading xxx to intercept localizer” and have been on an altitude well below the glideslope profile at the point where I actually intercepted that localizer.
Therefore what the controller expected me to do (and cleared me for) was to stay at the current altitude, intercept the localizer and strat the descent after intercepting the glideslope.
If I ever would be in the situation that my flightpath with the vectors would not take me on the localizer below the glidepath (which just to reiterate hasn’t happened to me so far) I would obviously ask back “pls. confirmed cleared for immediate descent to xxxx”.
Flying is simple!
Exactly Malibuflyer. The problem is pilots seem to love looking for problems
As I wrote Peter, the IAC for a particular procedure says what altitudes you are expected to fly at each section of the procedure.
Never below that. If you are above you are allowed to descend but are limited to a descent rate depending on aircraft category and whether you are inbound or outbound in a reverse procedure.
Vectored you can expect to be at platform altitude and in the final approach course by the time you are at least 2nm from the FAF/FAP inbound on the IF to FAF/FAP segment of the approach. If you are not, ask ATC just in case they have forgotten which approach you had requested.
Flying is indeed simple, most of the time.
Then you are inbound to LFAT at 5000ft and “cleared for the ILS”. You need to know what to do.
Sometimes you get this. You need to know what do to there. Everyone should read that thread.
A big problem is that most people don’t check the “Threads possibly related to this one” below
