Narrative:

Upon completion of IFR training, I instructed my student to intercept the lunken localizer to encounter the effects of localizer sensitivity. We were approximately 3 mi from the final approach fix (madeira NDB) and not yet established on the localizer because it was not even moving the localizer needle. Just as we turned the base leg for the approach a mlt helicopter 'guard' aircraft came into view apparently tracking the localizer but not in communication with lunken tower. We had not contacted lunken tower nor had we been in contact with cincinnati approach control due to the fact that we were doing some training in the same relative area approximately 8-10 mi southeast of the madeira NDB. We were however monitoring both lunken tower and cincinnati approach in order to listen for possible incoming traffic, however we did not hear the uh-ih on either of the 2 frequencys. I see the problem here lies in the fact that 2 VFR aircraft attempted to track 1 localizer beam from quite a distance beyond the final approach fix feeling safety in the distance. My suspicion is that the helicopter was doing the same thing my student and I were doing and the conflict could have been resolved if either aircraft would have taken initiative to be in constant contact with ATC well before intercepting the localizer. As specified earlier the mlt did appear to be established on the localizer beam and I was attempting to contact ATC before intercepting the localizer. Knowing this I feel if anyone was to be found at fault it would have to be the fault of the mlt pilot. I do not feel that either pilot of either aircraft should be found at fault. I simply feel that there should be a regulation implemented concerning flying instrument approachs in better than IFR conditions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA INSTRUCTOR PLT TAKES ISSUE WITH UNKNOWN VFR NORDO TFC IN AREA USING SAME NAVAID FACILITY WITHOUT CONTACTING ATC.

Narrative: UPON COMPLETION OF IFR TRAINING, I INSTRUCTED MY STUDENT TO INTERCEPT THE LUNKEN LOC TO ENCOUNTER THE EFFECTS OF LOC SENSITIVITY. WE WERE APPROX 3 MI FROM THE FINAL APCH FIX (MADEIRA NDB) AND NOT YET ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC BECAUSE IT WAS NOT EVEN MOVING THE LOC NEEDLE. JUST AS WE TURNED THE BASE LEG FOR THE APCH A MLT HELI 'GUARD' ACFT CAME INTO VIEW APPARENTLY TRACKING THE LOC BUT NOT IN COM WITH LUNKEN TWR. WE HAD NOT CONTACTED LUNKEN TWR NOR HAD WE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH CINCINNATI APCH CTL DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE DOING SOME TRAINING IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA APPROX 8-10 MI SE OF THE MADEIRA NDB. WE WERE HOWEVER MONITORING BOTH LUNKEN TWR AND CINCINNATI APCH IN ORDER TO LISTEN FOR POSSIBLE INCOMING TFC, HOWEVER WE DID NOT HEAR THE UH-IH ON EITHER OF THE 2 FREQS. I SEE THE PROBLEM HERE LIES IN THE FACT THAT 2 VFR ACFT ATTEMPTED TO TRACK 1 LOC BEAM FROM QUITE A DISTANCE BEYOND THE FINAL APCH FIX FEELING SAFETY IN THE DISTANCE. MY SUSPICION IS THAT THE HELI WAS DOING THE SAME THING MY STUDENT AND I WERE DOING AND THE CONFLICT COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IF EITHER ACFT WOULD HAVE TAKEN INITIATIVE TO BE IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH ATC WELL BEFORE INTERCEPTING THE LOC. AS SPECIFIED EARLIER THE MLT DID APPEAR TO BE ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC BEAM AND I WAS ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT ATC BEFORE INTERCEPTING THE LOC. KNOWING THIS I FEEL IF ANYONE WAS TO BE FOUND AT FAULT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE FAULT OF THE MLT PLT. I DO NOT FEEL THAT EITHER PLT OF EITHER ACFT SHOULD BE FOUND AT FAULT. I SIMPLY FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE A REG IMPLEMENTED CONCERNING FLYING INST APCHS IN BETTER THAN IFR CONDITIONS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.