Cleared for the ILS with no Glideslope

[chickenwolf]

Lets say you're cleared for the ILS but the Glideslope is NOTAMED out. Should'nt the controller say cleared for the LOC instead or is it kosher to say the ILS? Sorry that I'm t lazy to look it up

 

[Donsa320]

Lets say you're cleared for the ILS but the Glideslope is NOTAMED out. Should'nt the controller say cleared for the LOC instead or is it kosher to say the ILS? Sorry that I'm t lazy to look it up

Unless there is another LOC only approach published, the controller would have to use the title of the published approach in use. If that is an ILS approach then that is what it must be called. The controller may say that the glideslope is inop along with the clearance.

DC

 

[Flyin2low]

Correct, Donsa

 

[DrewBlows]

Unless there is another LOC only approach published, the controller would have to use the title of the published approach in use. If that is an ILS approach then that is what it must be called. The controller may say that the glideslope is inop along with the clearance.

DC

What if the title is "ILS or LOC"? Would the controller be correct using the phraseology "Cleared for the localizer..."?

 

[atl pilot]

yes,so long as the published title of the apch says both with an either between them. When this happens the minima criteria will also depict it as such (ILS or LOC).

 

[nosehair]

I'm t lazy to look it up

Actually, even if you weren't too lazy, I would bet you would have a hard time 'looking it up'.
I challenge any person who has, or will respond, to quote a hard reference to this.

If the controller has to say "ILS" instead of "localizer" if only "ILS" is used for the approach, how come the approach chart includes a localizer only approach MDA with a time to MAP chart?

References, please. I'm not interested in hearsay.

 

[j41driver]

References, please. I'm not interested in hearsay.

Ok...here you go.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf

Page 203 of 492 is where "Approach Clearance" begins. Proper phrasology is "Cleared I−L−S Runway XX Approach, glideslope unusable.”

 

[CallmeJB]

Oh snap

 

[clr4theapch]

MAP time and speed on the ILS apch plates

Actually, even if you weren't too lazy, I would bet you would have a hard time 'looking it up'.
I challenge any person who has, or will respond, to quote a hard reference to this.

If the controller has to say "ILS" instead of "localizer" if only "ILS" is used for the approach, how come the approach chart includes a localizer only approach MDA with a time to MAP chart?

References, please. I'm not interested in hearsay.

To add.... An ILS is a precision approach which does not require the MDA with time to MAP.. however if the glide slope goes down then this approach becomes an NON-precision approach and you need to have this information to make the approach without the glide slope.. So as an example your cleared for the ILS and suddenly the GS goes OTS you would have to go missed approach if you did not have this MDA and MAP times so the FAA in its wizdom has this information as a reference only for this situation.. On the profile view of the apch... it also shows you on the profile view the distances for the NON-Precision procedure.. as well as alternate minimums for a Straght in apch, and circling apch.. all this is for Notamed out navaids...
Hope this helps

 

[DrewBlows]

To add.... An ILS is a precision approach which does not require the MDA with time to MAP.. however if the glide slope goes down then this approach becomes an NON-precision approach and you need to have this information to make the approach without the glide slope.. So as an example your cleared for the ILS and suddenly the GS goes OTS you would have to go missed approach if you did not have this MDA and MAP times so the FAA in its wizdom has this information as a reference only for this situation.. On the profile view of the apch... it also shows you on the profile view the distances for the NON-Precision procedure.. as well as alternate minimums for a Straght in apch, and circling apch.. all this is for Notamed out navaids...
Hope this helps

You are out of your mind if you continue an ILS as a LOC when the GS "suddenly" goes out. The GS has just failed but you trust the LOC? Sure it wasn't your equipment? Go around and breif the proper approach.

 

[clr4theapch]

Drew I would agree totally..maybe my example was not the best...maybe the situation would be the GS was notamed out on the release.. for the active rwy in use at the destination.. so you would use the LOC apch with MDA and MAP numbers.. sorry, I was trying to expedite the point in theory.

Thanks for the situational correction..

 

[nosehair]

Ok...here you go.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf

Page 203 of 492 is where "Approach Clearance" begins. Proper phrasology is "Cleared I−L−S Runway XX Approach, glideslope unusable.”

Hey, thanks for the reference. I've heard that the controller is rerquired to say 'glideslope unusable', but I never hear it, even when it is notam'ed out, so I was wondering where this came from.

I don't suppose you know of a reference in a common pilot procedures manual, such as the Airman's Information Manual? Since this comes from a controller's manual, it isn't readily accesable to the pilot community. Maybe it's in the AIM and I don't know it.

It really isn't a big deal except that the controllers usually don't say the 'glideslope inop' part, so the myth about having to ask seperately for a LOC approach when this happens has become a standard misconception.

 

[say again]

Ok...here you go.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf

Page 203 of 492 is where "Approach Clearance" begins. Proper phrasology is "Cleared I−L−S Runway XX Approach, glideslope unusable.”

Good job!! :beer:

 

[bubbers44]

We were cleared for the ILS into Burbank one day when they had a test signal on the glide slope transmitter so it showed on glideslope no matter where you were. ATIS was garbled because of interference so we never got GS OTS but figured it out early on approach. The airliner behind us got a call of low altitude alert by the tower. They replied they were right on GS. Tower advised them it was notamed out of service. Unfortunately all they have to do is clear you for the ILS and let you figure it out.

 

[ALIMBO]

Now we see why a proper preflight involves looking at all the information possible to making a safe flight before taking off ie. checking the notams im guilty of not doing it at times to but who isnt.

 

[Donsa320]

We were cleared for the ILS into Burbank one day when they had a test signal on the glide slope transmitter so it showed on glideslope no matter where you were. ATIS was garbled because of interference so we never got GS OTS but figured it out early on approach. The airliner behind us got a call of low altitude alert by the tower. They replied they were right on GS. Tower advised them it was notamed out of service. Unfortunately all they have to do is clear you for the ILS and let you figure it out.

WOW, I've had an instrument rating since 1953 and in all those years I've seen countless lapses in the NOTAM system in this country. I understand there has been a change (again) in the publishing procedures recently. Let's hope it is for the better, but... any bets on that? <grin>
Be careful out there.

DC

 

[j41driver]

Hey, thanks for the reference.

No problem...glad I could help.

 

[Say Again Over]

WOW, I've had an instrument rating since 1953 and in all those years I've seen countless lapses in the NOTAM system in this country. I understand there has been a change (again) in the publishing procedures recently. Let's hope it is for the better, but... any bets on that? <grin>
Be careful out there

Yes agree, controllers handbook aside, makes no sense to clear someone for an approach that is out of service, too bad it takes killing people before things get fixed.

 

[chickenwolf]

Thanks for the reference J41. Theres definitely no excuse for missing the NOTAM but it is nice to have a reference verifying proper controller phraseology as well, I was pretty sure they were supposed to mention GS OTS.

 

[avbug]

I don't suppose you know of a reference in a common pilot procedures manual, such as the Airman's Information Manual? Since this comes from a controller's manual, it isn't readily accesable to the pilot community. Maybe it's in the AIM and I don't know it.

Perhaps that missing reference would be AIM 5-4-6, subparagraph (d).

d. The name of an instrument approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, such as the glideslope on an Instrument Landing System, is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable.