Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

ILS vs ILS OR LOC

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

flyf15

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Posts
548
Pretty simple question that I can't find the answer for... why are some approaches labeled "ILS OR LOC" while others are simply "ILS" when ILS approaches can be flown localizer only anyways?
 
ummmm not sure.....


all the ILS apps ive seen have loc. mins w/o g.s

come to think of it, i make no sence in answering your question
 
It's all about minimums.

To be ILS or LOC it has to have different minimums for a "localizer only" approach, it is not all that common to have an ILS without other minimums but we have one here at MSO. If you lose any part of the ILS 11 approach you can't do it. You are correct in that the localizer signal will be there and you could navigate with it, but, how low could you go? where is the MAP. The key is how many different minumums does the approach have for different equipment having failed. The LOC mins will be higher than the full ILS mins.
 
flyf15 said:
Pretty simple question that I can't find the answer for... why are some approaches labeled "ILS OR LOC" while others are simply "ILS" when ILS approaches can be flown localizer only anyways?

I believe we're in transition to the "ILS or LOC" terminology - so as NACO touches each plate it'll get re-named. I had a reference for that somewhere but can't find it - I'll look harder :)
 
Does anyone have one of these to look at? My guess (that's all it is) is that where an ILS with loc-only minima have identical structures (i.e. the ILS OM and the LOC FAF are the same), in an ILS or LOC chart there may be some differences.

MTPilot, the GS-out (LOC) minimums are always different than the ILS minimums,whether or not the chart is labeled ILS or LOC.
 
CFIse said:
I believe we're in transition to the "ILS or LOC" terminology - so as NACO touches each plate it'll get re-named. I had a reference for that somewhere but can't find it - I'll look harder :)

I believe that we are in a transition. However, I also believe a lot of it has to do with how it was checked and certified. I know that really doesn't answer the question "why" but I know sometimes if it listed as a ILS only and the GS is unusable you still get cleared for the "ILS GS unusable to (Insert rwy here)" as opposed to LOC only approach to rwy XX. Does that make any sense at all?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top