I can think of one, but I want to hear what you folks are thinking.
I disagree with the side step because the minimum ceiling/altitude for a side step is driven by opspecs, and it not published on the approach plate.
and I disagree with this, because you're not treating the ILS as a non-precision, you ARE flying the non-precision approach that is printed on the same plate as the ILS. Hair-splitting, of course. It's probably one of the answers that the OP is looking for."Cleared for the ILS XX, GS out of service"
1. Circle-to-land
2. Side-step
I had a question asked to me in prep for my IFR ride next week:
1.Name two situations where you would use an ILS as a non-precision approach?
I can think of one, but I want to hear what you folks are thinking.
"Cleared for the ILS XX, GS out of service"
Not IFR rated yet, but I disagree. If the GS is out, they you don't have an ILS, just a LOC, and you would be cleared for the LOC approach.
Am I missing something?
I'm going to go with Circle to Land and performing the approach in airplane lacking a glideslope. Granted, in the second case you're technically flying a localizer approach, but the ground equipment is unchanged. By the same token, a back course could also be considered using an ILS for a non-precision approach.
If the GS is out, they you don't have an ILS, just a LOC, and you would be cleared for the LOC approach.
y # you will always, always be cleared "Cleared for ILS #, GS out of service".
they you don't have an ILS, just a LOC, and you would be cleared for the LOC approach.
1. Circle-to-land
2. Side-step
BajtheJino's previous comment was correct in how ATC usually does it. They are supposed to clear you using the title of the approach on the sheet of paper...this directive exists in the ATC Handbook. However, in recent years, the ILS' have started to be renamed "or LOC". Once that occurs, ATC can then clear you for the LOC, instead of the ILS.
It is definitely not the sidestep as you are executing an ILS using ILS mins then moving over to the parallel runway after breaking out. Sidestep is not an approach but rather a termination of an approach.
Those are hardly new. They're not considered "precision", but "approach with vertical guidance."Also no one has mentioned the newest "other than Precision " approach called LDA's.
No, you're not using ILS minimums, you're using an MDA that is derived using a combination of the MDA's for the LOC approaches for both runways.
Thats why I stated that very same thing in the next paragraph. Thanks for reading.
Those are hardly new. They're not considered "precision", but "approach with vertical guidance."
Thats why I stated that very same thing in the next paragraph. Thanks for reading.
With that said though here is what I found:
ATC may authorize a side-step maneuver to either one of two parallel runways that are separated by 1,200 feet or less, followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway. Aircraft executing a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified nonprecision approach and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. For example, "Cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side-step to runway 7 right." Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums. However, when in doubt, use circling minimums.
Also no one has mentioned the newest "other than Precision " approach called LDA's.