Narrative:

While being vectored to final for the ILS runway 4 approach at esn, the controller brought us in from the east side of the airport, initially on a 270 degree vector, then on a 310 degree vector. We crossed the ILS localizer on a heading of 310 degrees about 12 mi from the airport, at which time the controller issued a right turn heading 030 degrees, instructed us to intercept the localizer, and cleared us for the approach. At that point, we were about 1 mi northwest of the localizer, and the 030 degree heading was diverging. Due to the clear WX, I was able to confirm all locations visually. We were definitely northwest of the centerline. I instructed my student to turn right to 060 degrees to intercept and informed the controller what was happening. He said he showed us about 1 mi southeast of the localizer on his radar display. When I queried him further, he admitted that the localizer was not depicted, and that he was using a 221 degree bearing off the depicted location of esn as the reference for the vector. We continued on the localizer based on our navigation receiver and CDI, with the CDI dead centered all the way (confirmed visually with reference to the runway), and the controller confirmed that on his radar we were tracking 1 or 2 mi southeast of where he thought the localizer was all the way to the runway. After the flight, I confirmed with other instructors that this has happened before on this approach. In a telephone call with the branch chief at the NAS patuxent river RAPCON, we determined that patuxent approach does not normally vector aircraft in this area, which is within potomac approach's airspace, but that on occasion, by individual agreement between the controllers of the affected sector, patuxent controls traffic in this area on a 'pointout' basis. The problem is that patuxent approach does not have a validated depiction of the esn ILS final approach course or approach gate on their radar display. The solution is for patuxent controllers not to accept aircraft for vectoring to the recently-established esn localizer final approach course unless/until the localizer is depicted accurately on their display. In addition, a formal LOA between potomac approach and patuxent approach should be developed to document the capabilities of each facility and to establish achievable responsibilities for traffic near the boundary between the two.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 INSTRUCTOR PLT EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING NHK TRACON VECTORS FOR ILS APCH TO ESN.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED TO FINAL FOR THE ILS RWY 4 APCH AT ESN, THE CTLR BROUGHT US IN FROM THE E SIDE OF THE ARPT, INITIALLY ON A 270 DEG VECTOR, THEN ON A 310 DEG VECTOR. WE CROSSED THE ILS LOC ON A HDG OF 310 DEGS ABOUT 12 MI FROM THE ARPT, AT WHICH TIME THE CTLR ISSUED A R TURN HDG 030 DEGS, INSTRUCTED US TO INTERCEPT THE LOC, AND CLRED US FOR THE APCH. AT THAT POINT, WE WERE ABOUT 1 MI NW OF THE LOC, AND THE 030 DEG HDG WAS DIVERGING. DUE TO THE CLR WX, I WAS ABLE TO CONFIRM ALL LOCATIONS VISUALLY. WE WERE DEFINITELY NW OF THE CTRLINE. I INSTRUCTED MY STUDENT TO TURN R TO 060 DEGS TO INTERCEPT AND INFORMED THE CTLR WHAT WAS HAPPENING. HE SAID HE SHOWED US ABOUT 1 MI SE OF THE LOC ON HIS RADAR DISPLAY. WHEN I QUERIED HIM FURTHER, HE ADMITTED THAT THE LOC WAS NOT DEPICTED, AND THAT HE WAS USING A 221 DEG BEARING OFF THE DEPICTED LOCATION OF ESN AS THE REF FOR THE VECTOR. WE CONTINUED ON THE LOC BASED ON OUR NAV RECEIVER AND CDI, WITH THE CDI DEAD CTRED ALL THE WAY (CONFIRMED VISUALLY WITH REF TO THE RWY), AND THE CTLR CONFIRMED THAT ON HIS RADAR WE WERE TRACKING 1 OR 2 MI SE OF WHERE HE THOUGHT THE LOC WAS ALL THE WAY TO THE RWY. AFTER THE FLT, I CONFIRMED WITH OTHER INSTRUCTORS THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE ON THIS APCH. IN A TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE BRANCH CHIEF AT THE NAS PATUXENT RIVER RAPCON, WE DETERMINED THAT PATUXENT APCH DOES NOT NORMALLY VECTOR ACFT IN THIS AREA, WHICH IS WITHIN POTOMAC APCH'S AIRSPACE, BUT THAT ON OCCASION, BY INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT BTWN THE CTLRS OF THE AFFECTED SECTOR, PATUXENT CTLS TFC IN THIS AREA ON A 'POINTOUT' BASIS. THE PROB IS THAT PATUXENT APCH DOES NOT HAVE A VALIDATED DEPICTION OF THE ESN ILS FINAL APCH COURSE OR APCH GATE ON THEIR RADAR DISPLAY. THE SOLUTION IS FOR PATUXENT CTLRS NOT TO ACCEPT ACFT FOR VECTORING TO THE RECENTLY-ESTABLISHED ESN LOC FINAL APCH COURSE UNLESS/UNTIL THE LOC IS DEPICTED ACCURATELY ON THEIR DISPLAY. IN ADDITION, A FORMAL LOA BTWN POTOMAC APCH AND PATUXENT APCH SHOULD BE DEVELOPED TO DOCUMENT THE CAPABILITIES OF EACH FACILITY AND TO ESTABLISH ACHIEVABLE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TFC NEAR THE BOUNDARY BTWN THE TWO.

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.