Flying recently into Cologne EDDK, ILS approach, SR22, I was given a decent far too late, was vectored through the ILS and had to query it, then after vectoring back was virtually at the FAF once back on course, and was still 800ft too high at the FAF despite 1,000FPM decent rate. It was good visual conditions so just intercepted the glideslope from above with about 5% power, but not ideal.
How often do you get poor vectoring for an approach, and is it worse when it’s not “real” conditions and/or there is jet traffic?
The folk at LIML tend to vector the propeller traffic at just the right intercept and altitude so the A/P fails to capture the G/S, preferably when the airport is at CAT 1 minima. 
It takes a fair bit of skill to do this and I respect their talent to squeeze you in within rush hour jet traffic.
Generally I find ATC vectoring to be excellent, but I have had a couple of lower-quality vectors recently, both at the same airport.
The first one had me intercept the localiser right at the FAF. I saw what was happening and prepared myself – not such a big deal.
The second vectored me into the path of departing commercial traffic and instructed me to take avoiding action whilst in IMC. That was entertaining. I wonder if he got a TA/RA?
Lesson learned: one still has to be highly vigilant when on vectors.
Here in the US it happens quite a bit over busy airspace. Went to Napa over xmas and they always keep you very high above San Francisco for all the airline traffic going into SFO and Oakland. Sure enough, I was at 10000ft and a steep intercept heading as they flew me over the city and gave me a slam dunk into Napa. Thankfully it was VMC, so as I became visual with airport, I could be a bit more aggressive.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Sure enough, I was at 10000ft and a steep intercept heading as they flew me over the city and gave me a slam dunk into Napa.
We get the same in the Paris area into Pontoise (LFPT) depending on the activity in glider areas and the direction of traffic into De-Gaulle.
I used to fly out of KOAK where the slam-dunk approaches to 27R were very common, although from lower altitude. You had to descend pretty quickly on base to intercept the glide from below and intercepted the LLZ pretty close to the FAF.
Some previous threads here and here
I have had a very tight vector a few times, even above the GS at the FAF, but it always seemed to be because the controller expected a steeper descent rate than the -500fpm or whatever which I was doing.
They should however never vector you to a point inside the FAF.
They should not even vector you directly to the FAF. Most autopilots will not intecept the ILS GS if you were not established on the LOC. Same for the LPV or LNAV/VNAV approaches, the airplane has to be established on the Final Track at least two miles outside the FAF.
I personally refuse directs to the FAF.
Yesterday, I was flying instrument approaches into Mannheim (EDFM), for training, in the Piper Arrow. The first one was a vectored LOC-DME approach for 27.
During the vectoring, the radar controller asked if I could accept a short approach via an 8 mile final. I love shortcuts and accepted. The approach went fine. These “shorties” are good stuff and quite the norm in Germany.
The second approach was an RNAV approach for 27, again radar vectored.
And again, during the initial vectoring, the controller asked me if I could accept an 8 mile final. This sounded a bit strange to me, as I thought that would put me inside the FAF (EPOMA). But since the weather was OK and I wanted to see what would happen, I accepted. And sure enough, this vectoring of course brought me in a couple of miles inside the FAF. What is interesting by the way is that just as I was turning final and came up abeam EPOMA, the annunciation (of the GNS430) very briefly switched from TERM to APR and then switched back to TERM, which is where it then remained (expectedly). I then flew the final approach in TERM mode, which of course shouldn’t be done, but again, I was VMC by that time. It is still very precise and brings you down perfectly on centreline.
But what is so interesting is that yet again, some controllers don’t seem to have understood GPS approaches and their limitations. And that is in Germany, which arguably has the best controllers and where we have 20 years of experience with GPS approaches now…
Or is there any way one CAN fly GPS approaches (i.e. get them activated) with an intercept INSIDE the FAF? Maybe with something more sophisticated than an almost 20 year old GNS430?
I had something similar happening to me on an RNAV 29 approach to EKRK, except that I was IMC. The controller gave me a DCT to the FAF (RK291) in order not to interfere with traffic at nearby Kastrup. I aimed somewhat east of RK291, the controller did not say anything and the navigator switched to APR mode.
Happened to me THREE times last year. In Germany (2) and in Croatia. Now i do not accept directs to the FAP/FAF anymore when in IMC.
But no matter if ILS or RNAV – the autopilot will not intercept the Glideslope if you arrive AT or even inside the FAP (ILS) or FAF (RNAV). That does not even work with WAAS on an LPV or LNAV/VNAV. I general you need at least a straight segment before the FAP/FAF to fly a coupled approach with our equipment. I know it’s true for the GNS430 and 430W.
On the ILS my installation will capture the LOC but not the GS. On an RNAV approach to Brno where i got a vector to the FAF two years ago it also flew through the final track.
