Timeing an ILS
Question:
Hi folks, CM Also, it is not legal to change over the a LOC approach if you have been CM cleared for an ILS. It is necessary to get a new clearance, and part CM of obtaining a new clearance will be an ATC instruction for a missed CM approach. If you are cleared for an ILS, and at some point either CM before or after the Final Approach Segment you lose the glideslope, you CM cannot continue the approach at all. You have been cleared for an ILS, CM not a LOC. CM CM If you contact ATC prior to the FAF (LOC), then they will likely amend your CM clearance for a LOC approach so that you won’t have to do the entire CM procedure turn, hold, or re-vectoring to the final approach course again. CM If you contact ATC after the FAF/FAS then they will instruct you to go CM missed. Why should I? For me there’s no difference just what approach a pilot flies as long as (s)he ends up on the runway specified in the approach clearance. If a pilot tells me on final approach tells me (s)he’s lost the GS then why should I tell him/her to go around when it’s perfectly safe to fly a LOC/VOR/NDB/whatever approach? Small point: We have a DME at the airport, all MAPt are defined by DME. Timing is not required, in fact the timing figures published on our approach plates are guidelines only and may not be used for actual timing. CM all that safe for one thing, it is a different approach than you were CM given a clearance (and ATC instruction) for another. Plus, you probably CM didn’t start timing your approach to begin with (since it was an ILS where CM timing is not applicable, and basically a waste of time in general), which CM means you have no way of defining the MAP for the LOC approach anyway. Er … here at EDDL the MAPt for ILS/GP inop is the MM (which should still be working when the GS goes inop), so you don’t need timing for a LOC approach. For all other non-precision approaches, MAPt are defined by DME, so even if you lose both NAVs you can still fall back on an NDB approach, as long as you have a DME reading to both find the fixes for the step-down altitudes and the MAPt. Are things different in the States? … Alex my personal opinions … X/ ATC Germany – EDDL APP/TWR
Response:
I know that there are folks that believe in transitioning from a full ILS to a LOC approach is do-able. I can accept that as an OPTION but…It has always bothered me that too many CFIIs don’t really train that loss of a GS can be more serious then first thought. It is a [some omitted for brevity] Agreed 100%. There is no basis for continuing such an approach. It isn’t all that safe for one thing, it is a different approach than you were given a clearance (and ATC instruction) for another. Plus, you probably didn’t start timing your approach to begin with (since it was an ILS where timing is not applicable, and basically a waste of time in general), which means you have no way of defining the MAP for the LOC approach anyway.
Consider making that 95%? If I’m in IMC with a radio failure and the GS goes away, ATC would rather have me do the LOC than clear all the airspace around the airport for the miss. Pilots should be trained to always time their ILS. CFIs that don’t simulate GS failure and then ask the perplexed student when the MAP occurs might just get their students killed one day. Also it helps to ingrain the habit of starting the timer when inbound FAF (official or unofficial).
Response:
I have a related question regarding what ATC is suppose to call the approach. Assume: Terminal Procedure Publication says: ILS 33L Baltimore, Maryland and it has minimums on that plate for "GS inoperative" If I remember the last time that occurred, ATC said, "Cleared for the ILS 33L, be advised the glideslope is out of service." Question: Should the controller say "Cleared for the ILS 33L" or "Cleared for the LOC 33L?" Remember, the TPP only has an ILS 33L approach, it does not say LOC 33L. Net thoughts? Controller responses preferred. (They know better? )
IMHO: The answer is no. LOC 33L approach would imply a different approach plate with potentially different fixes, etc. The ILS 33L approach plate presumably lists a different set of minimums for when the glide slope is OTS or not being used (for example – what if you don’t have a GS receiver. Thus the ILS 33L without GS is just another variation of the same approach, just as the circling minimums are another variation. Another variation on this theme it that per articles I’ve read in IFR, it is legal while on the ILS approach to decend below the glide slope to the localizer minimums and then level off until you re-intercept the GS. __Inbound MEA ______* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ # * = LOC step down fix | # = normal GS intercept | point ___ILS_DH____ The rational for doing this is that when making an approach with a low overcast you stand a good chance of breaking out futher away from the airport, which gives you more time to make the transition to visual and to start looking for traffic in the pattern. They claimed that ATC doesn’t care whether you fly the GS or the LOC profile, they still have to protect the same airspace. Bruce Bateman
Response:
I agree 100%. Good training and good mental checklists especially after any situation that interferes with normal procedure should insure no gear up landings. Most retractable plane pilots have a checklist that works 100%. It falls apart when there’s a go around or change in approach procedure. My checklist calls for gear down as the number one check whenever ANYTHING changes. I always check 3 green at 200 feet above ground on final. I’ve got implanted in my brain that if ANY deviation from final approach is changed, I MUST check gear down. So I check at FAF inbound (or downwind), again at base when I set prop full forward, and short final. IFR at FAF, and before landing. BTW, my checklists for gear down are not written. They are rote by memory. Period. It works for me. Twenty years and no gear up landings. Take care, Stan Arrow 2719C Islip NY (ISP)
Response:
As AOPA published recently – there are two types of GA pilots, those who have done gear up landings and those who will.
And I think that is about the stupidest line I have ever heard. I have read it before serveral times. If a gear up landing occurs it had better be from total mechanical failure. If it happens for any other reason there is no excuse. FWIW. My $.02
! Your Fear Of Failure Does Not Justify The Taxing Of My Hard Work … ! !—Bill I speak for myself … !
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you contact ATC prior to the FAF (LOC), then they will likely amend your clearance for a LOC approach so that you won’t have to do the entire procedure turn, hold, or re-vectoring to the final approach course again. If you contact ATC after the FAF/FAS then they will instruct you to go missed. … If I lose the GS after I have intercepted it and I am in IMC, I will declare MA. I don’t care if the WX says I SHOULD break out at or above the new MDA for the LOC, I want to start clean. Agreed 100%. There is no basis for continuing such an approach. It isn’t all that safe for one thing, it is a different approach than you were given a clearance (and ATC instruction) for another. Plus, you probably didn’t start timing your approach to begin with (since it was an ILS where timing is not applicable, and basically a waste of time in general), which means you have no way of defining the MAP for the LOC approach anyway.
I’m all for the "better to play it safe attitude" but if the ILS has a threshold DME to go with it, do you think turning an ILS into a LOC is still risky (if so where’s the hazard?)? Julian Scarfe
Response:
If you contact ATC prior to the FAF (LOC), then they will likely amend your clearance for a LOC approach so that you won’t have to do the entire procedure turn, hold, or re-vectoring to the final approach course again. If you contact ATC after the FAF/FAS then they will instruct you to go missed.
I have a related question regarding what ATC is suppose to call the approach. Assume: Terminal Procedure Publication says: ILS 33L Baltimore, Maryland and it has minimums on that plate for "GS inoperative" If I remember the last time that occurred, ATC said, "Cleared for the ILS 33L, be advised the glideslope is out of service." Question: Should the controller say "Cleared for the ILS 33L" or "Cleared for the LOC 33L?" Remember, the TPP only has an ILS 33L approach, it does not say LOC 33L. Net thoughts? Controller responses preferred. (They know better? )
Response:
Not legally. ATC says that you are "cleared for an ILS 29R approach to the Jeffco airport." You cannot deviate from this clearance, either in the approach type, or the airport without an amended clearance.
I disagree. I can’t find an approach chart with the name Localizer 29R at Jeffco. There is one for an ILS 29R, and it does have GS Out minima listed. Much as your approach minimums change based on your approach speed, if the equipment doesn’t permit you to do a full ILS you can just change the procedure/minima to fit your case without a specific clearance. I am currently in New Zealand and there isn’t a Pilot/Controller Glossary in sight. Can somebody look to see if the term "Cleared localizer approach" is even defined? Also does the definition of "cleared ILS approach" specifically include/exclude localizer-only approaches? | Keith Barr __ _____ Entropy–it just isn’t what it used to be. _/____/O
Response:
I have a related question regarding what ATC is suppose to call the approach. Assume: Terminal Procedure Publication says: ILS 33L Baltimore, Maryland and it has minimums on that plate for "GS inoperative" If I remember the last time that occurred, ATC said, "Cleared for the ILS 33L, be advised the glideslope is out of service." Question: Should the controller say "Cleared for the ILS 33L" or "Cleared for the LOC 33L?" Remember, the TPP only has an ILS 33L approach, it does not say LOC 33L. Net thoughts? Controller responses preferred. (They know better? )
If I get a vote, I vote for "Cleared for the ILS 33L". It would be potentially confusing to be cleared for a non-existent approach. — Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru My views are my own, not MITRE’s (why use a disclaimer when people are
Response:
Okay, this begs another question. What if the reason you want to do a MA is because you messed up, and wound up with a full scale deflection. (Given the workload, and the sensitivity of the localizer compared to a VOR, this situation isn’t exactly far fetched)
Generally speaking, in this case, the airspace between you and the MAP is protected while the airspace between you and the rest of the missed approach procedure is not necessarily protected. You are safer trying to re-establish and then performing the missed procedure when the time is up (or at the MAP) than trying to do the missed procedure too early. Fun, ain’t it. — Bob Noel aka Kobyashi Maru My views are my own, not MITRE’s (why use a disclaimer when people are
Response:
I bad an incorrect statement concerning clearances and deviations. If one is cleared for an "ILS 33 approach" then you are cleared for all of the types of approaches you can make from that named approach (or that chart). For example: cleared for an ILS 33 approach would mean I can do: 1. S-ILS: FAF does not exist (technically) because it is not definable by two lines. The OM is not the FAF for an S-ILS, the lightening bolt *is* considered a FAF, but is technically a Final Approach Segment because a fix is not definable. Call it a FAF and you not not wrong by any means; but Final Approach Segment would be more correct. DH is the MAP so timing is not relevant or applicable. 2. S-LOC: FAF is the maltese cross which is usually at the OM or LOM. There is an MDA with a MAP defined by time from the FAF, OR a DME fix or cross bearing if published on the approach procedure. 3. CIRCLING: FAF is also the maltese cross, and an MDA with the MAP defined by time from the FAF, or a DME fix, cross bearing etc. So if I am cleared for an ILS 33 approach, and I lose my GS, I can legally continue on a S-LOC type of approach without GS if I so choose without an amended clearance because a clearance for an "ILS" approach includes using any of the minima provided on that approach procedure. Hopefully I have vindicated myself at least half way, and not confused anyone in the process. Chris Murphy CU Boulder CFI-ASE, IA COMM-AS&MEL
Response:
INRE: Re: Timeing an ILS m Making the switch from ILS to Localizer only is a decision that myou as PIC get to make. If you feel comfortable with it, go ahead; mif not miss the approach and try again. If you elect to continue the mapproach, remember that the minimums just went up, and you might malready be below the MDA for the Localizer approach. mNot legally. ATC says that you are "cleared for an ILS 29R approach mto the Jeffco airport." You cannot deviate from this clearance, meither in the approach type, or the airport without an amended mclearance. Sorry friend, this isn’t correct. Even if the GS is INOP, you will be cleared for the ILS 29R approach. If the ground based GS is INOP, you will be cleared for the ILS approach with, GLIDESLOPE INOPERATEVE" tacked on. If you choose to, you can elect to use a LOC only procedure. I don’t need to know this. mWhen do you start the timer? OM, or FAF for LOC approach? Times for an ILS will start at the OM. mif you do, you can’t make it a LOC approach without proper ATC mclearance. This is a waste of time and energy which should be focused mon the approach itself. I am a semi-convert. As this gentleman’s reply clarified for me, you need to be able to identify the FAF in some manner before executing a turn for a published MA. If only the MM is available, I would still time. If there are other means, like DME, I don’t see the need. Don Moore STD DISCLAIMER: It is MY opinion, NOT my employer’s —
