Because he is saying he wants to start his descend Farther out then what is his FMC giving him



Isnt this what he wants to do ??



any way this is what i understood

 

He is not wanting to start down early. He is trying to conform with the published ILS approach for RWY25 which has D13.9 in it. What the FMS might come up with comes in second when compared to the charts. The FMS is spittting out nothing more that what was in Cycle 1303 in the FMS database from Navigraph and some of their information such as altitude restrictions, IAF, and various approaches  is just flat out wrong.

 

Michael Cubine

But just heads up this will not work online with ATC they will not let you descend  that farther out  to the Altitude you want

 

As a controller (of the online sort) and as someone who works with them all the time for my real job, I can't say I agree with that.

 

First, Markus's answer duplicated exactly what is on the chart, which is what the controller would expect you to fly.  Moreover, a controller's MVAs (particular to EBBR, which is in relatively flat terrain) are likely down at about 2000.  As such, the controller could very easily bring you down to 2000, but because the FAF is at 3000, it would be poor form.

 

When a controller is clearing an aircraft for an approach, he or she is very aware of the charted approach procedure.  Some of it is controller preference (partially based on how the facility teaches), but I tend to use permissive altitudes where possible.  Instead of "descend and maintain," which means you should do it now, I (and the facilities I support) tend to use something similar to "[...] cross Flora at or above 3000, [...].*"  This allows the pilot to fly his or her optimal profile onto the approach.  This also eliminates some of your altitude concern.  You're getting the altitude that is charted.  As the above procedures reflect what is charted, this won't be a problem at all.

 

*The full clearance would be (if on vectors, using FAA-type terminology - not sure if it's different over there):

"Lufthansa 4282, 5nm southeast of Flora.  Proceed direct Flora, cross Flora at or above 3000, cleared ILS Runway 25L approach."

He is not wanting to start down early. He is trying to conform with the published ILS approach for RWY25 which has D13.9 in it. What the FMS might come up with comes in second when compared to the charts. The FMS is spittting out nothing more that what was in Cycle 1303 in the FMS database from Navigraph and some of their information such as altitude restrictions, IAF, and various approaches  is just flat out wrong.

 

Michael Cubine

 

Exactly!

 

Rod Storer

OH    Sorry it Looks Like i had this all backwards  for some add reason i was thinking all this times he wants to Start descending early then what the FMC is giving him 

 

and as far as ATC goes i am pretty sure almost every one here flies on Line knows that Some times  you get an Approach where you want to be at 2500 FT but ATC tells you ( well me )  stay at 4000FT and they Tend to Push you a little to Close,,   before they give you the Ok to descend to 2500 ft  witch is still ok but some times i would like to be a little bit lower when trying to capture the G?S

 

i know this has happen to me many many times , and because i use EFB i can see exactly where i am on the map before or at the G/S and higher or Lower then what is needed

 

hop this clears up the confusion

 

happy landings

 

and as far as ATC goes i am pretty sure almost every one here flies on Line knows that Some times  you get an Approach where you want to be at 2500 FT but ATC tells you ( well me )  stay at 4000FT and they Tend to Push you a little to Close,,   before they give you the Ok to descend to 2500 ft  witch is still ok but some times i would like to be a little bit lower when trying to capture the G?S

 

It might just be because of the MVAs in that controllers area.  In the end, as long as they bring you in under the glide slope it shouldn't be an issue.  If they're bringing you in above the glide slope, then there's an issue.