PilotEdge Forums

jcallum wrote:Thanks all. So if I understand it, if I get an instruction to "join the localizer" or "join the approach", this is a lateral only instruction and I can intercept the localizer, i.e turn onto the approach course, but cannot descend on the glideslope until I receive the approach clearance. Have I got it?

John.

Correct. It is not unusual to hear "Maintain X,000" or "Expect approach clearance near [fix]," but these additional statements are not required.

I say join sometimes in Duluth. Should be intercept but - it happens. Join is faster to say that intercept.

Question is, what is the legal difference between "join" vs "intercept".
P/CG isn't of much help.

Join or intercept
Way back when I was taught, we were told,
“Join airways and routes, intercept radials and final approach courses.”
You have to dig a bit, but it’s in there.
Join:
5-1-12.
5-4-11/e and notes 2 and 3
8-9-7/a
Intercept:
5-1-12 Phraseology
5-6-2/b Phraseology
5-9-1 Intro.
5-9-2
5-9-4/b

Mudhen wrote:Join or intercept
Way back when I was taught, we were told,
“Join airways and routes, intercept radials and final approach courses.”
You have to dig a bit, but it’s in there.
Join:
5-1-12.
5-4-11/e and notes 2 and 3
8-9-7/a
Intercept:
5-1-12 Phraseology
5-6-2/b Phraseology
5-9-1 Intro.
5-9-2
5-9-4/b

I have read all of those I do not see anything defining the legal meaning of the words "intercept" and "join".

I believe they can be used interchangeably and here is why:

(Yes, I'm stretching here but I don't think it is a big deal that you use one or the other. It means the same)

Non-aviation definitions:
Join - "to become linked or connected to"
Intercept - "obstruct (someone or something) so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination."

So we want to "stop the localizer"? I don't think so.



The .65 seems to be set on using Join for "routes" and Intercept for "localizers/courses"

If you look up the definition of a "route", it is used interchangeably with "course" and is a way to navigate to an intended destination.

A localizer is just a route/course to the runway. So why not use "join" for it?

Same goes for NAVIAD radials... You are joining them, not intercepting them. At least that is my opinion.

I totally get what you’re saying, and on a personal level, I can see, (and agree with,) your perspective.
Until I sit in the jury box on a death related case involving Air Traffic Control. Then my perspective changes.

7110.65/ 1-1-1: Purpose
This order prescribes air traffic control procedures and phraseology for use by persons providing air traffic control services.
Controllers are required to be familiar with the provisions of this order that pertain to their operational responsibilities
and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations that are not covered by it.

Kyle.Sanders wrote:I have read all of those I do not see anything defining the legal meaning of the words "intercept" and "join".

The 7110.65 is a legal document. It is not a suggestion, it is obligatory.
The attorneys who use it against you will not ask you how you feel, and they don’t care about your opinion.
They will compare what is heard on the tapes with the references in the 7110.
Any deviation is highlighted as negligent.

Oh!! Most surely! Which is why I use "intercept" when I am suppose to and same with "join".

I'm not arguing that the .65 isn't a legal document...
I'm just pointing out a flaw here:

They have "phraseology" standards for WHEN to use join and intercept but doesn't "define" those terms.
"What does intercept mean?" "What does join mean?" "How does intercept differ from the meaning of join?"...


I have defined these terms above. I want the .65 or the P/CG to do the same for an "aviation" standpoint.


Again, not saying not to use it... But I am just voicing a personal opinion on the matter.

Kyle, while it is apparent that perhaps the lack of a clear definition for each of the terms is absent from the 7110.65, or more specifically a place contained therein that describes when either term shall not be used, the document is very clear about when something is deemed as exact phraseology versus a suggested example.

In tandem with what Mudhen mentioned, the clues (though perhaps ambiguous and open for some debate) are there in-between the lines.

Under 7110.65, 1-2-5 Annotations, the terms "Phraseology" and "Example" are defined. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm only going based my understanding of the 7110.65 and what I've been taught in ATC school, but my understanding is that if it's written a certain way under "Phraseology" then the expectation is that you will use the exemplified terms/concepts in the exact manner in which it is annotated. And, just as you can look at a glass that is half full and determine it to be half empty, it would stand to reason that any alternative means of direction would be considered incorrect; otherwise, the annotation would be listed as "Example."

99% of the time (OK, well maybe 85% because of the occasional bad habits I pick up from N90!) I follow this rule of thumb as a way to keep things "by the book" and "legal" enough to be clear and understood by pilots who fly anywhere within the ATC system.

I add this to the discussion not to allude to the fact that you, or anybody, may not understand what to do and when (as I know you do), but to offer some reasoning as to why the supposed loop hole you mentioned may exist. With a document that contains so much information, it stands to reason that perhaps not everything will be spelled out in an A-to-B direct kind of way. I have found, over the course of time studying, teaching, and practicing many of the federal documents, that rationalizing and understanding the contents requires a little more investigative work to see what lies between the printed words.

^ Well said, (or written.)

Mudhen wrote:^ Well said, (or written.)

Agreed with mudhen