To brief or not to brief...

charlie1017

charlie1017

Well-Known Member
Do you brief both ILS and LOC approaches if both are in the plate together? Would you change from an ILS to a LOC approach if you get a flag on the GS during the approach? I got chastised by my CFI for not briefing the LOC part of the ILS during a practice approach. I told him that I wouldn't brief it because I would go missed if lost the GS signal. That's the way I was taught during instrument training and some of the other CFIs at my school here do it that way as well.

So what are your thoughts?
 
Our Manual says that if you lose the GS indication while shooting an ILS/LOC approach you can descend via stepdowns to your MDA. That said, I don't brief the LOC only portion of the approach.
 
If you brief that you should also brief, step by step, what you're gonna do if the gear doesn't come down, if the flaps don't come down, and what you might have for lunch the next day.
 
Boris Badenov said:
What is this "brief" of which you speak?
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: I'll go over the chart, but if they're on the same page, if you look at one wouldn't you already be looking at the other? I think I know what you're talking about, and I'd continue on to the MDA for the LOC since I've already looked over it. But I've heard some people will just go missed. I guess that would be the more prudent thing to do.
 
Boris Badenov said:
What is this "brief" of which you speak?
Click to expand...

I think they're talking about underpants.:confused:





















:sarcasm::D

I don't brief the LOC approach. I do tell myself that if anything adnormal happens that I'd go missed and come back around for the LOC approach. The big reason being, what do you do if you're below the MDA on the approach when the glide slope goes inop? Do you climb back up to the MDA and continue the approach? I'd rather just go missed and come back in for the LOC approach after I briefed it to myself .
 
KLB said:
I think they're talking about underpants.:confused:





















:sarcasm::D

I don't brief the LOC approach. I do tell myself that if anything adnormal happens that I'd go missed and come back around for the LOC approach. The big reason being, what do you do if you're below the MDA on the approach when the glide slope goes inop? Do you climb back up to the MDA and continue the approach? I'd rather just go missed and come back in for the LOC approach after I briefed it to myself .
Click to expand...
:yup:
Good point on that. I was thinking he meant if it went inop before MDA. If I was below it when it went inop I would go missed then.
 
Hell, unless I was outside the faf, I probably would not continue the approach if the GS went out.

My beef is when people get their stuff in a bunch over technique, not procedure.
 
I'm gonna go missed if I lose the glideslope. Maybe before it died completely it was giving erroneous readings -- yeah, no suppose to happen but they're not supposed to just die either.
 
My personal opinion -

1. you were cleared for the ILS, not the localizer only approach.

2. if the glide slope craps out, whats to say the localizer is reading correctly?

3. whats the harm in going missed and just coming back around? i get paid by the minute, and if im over-guarantee its even better.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
I'm gonna go missed if I lose the glideslope. Maybe before it died completely it was giving erroneous readings -- yeah, no suppose to happen but they're not supposed to just die either.
Click to expand...

True, but you'd be able to reasonable crosscheck it against your altitude to see if it generally makes sense, or at the glideslope check altitude if it really makes sense or not.

Either way (generally speaking), as stated in the thread, continuing with the non-precision vs going missed will really depend on where you are, how well you're prepared to transition, how tasked you are, etc. If you can do it fairly easily and are comfortable, go for it. If not, go missed. The answer is, both techniques are correct.
 
Holocene said:
They are two different transmitters. Independent.
Click to expand...

I have been in a situation where both crapped out. Went missed tower said "Oh yea, it resets sometimes. it should be all ok in 5 seconds." Gee thanks, a missed approach and irregularity paperwork.
 
v1valarob said:
My personal opinion -

1. you were cleared for the ILS, not the localizer only approach.
Click to expand...

True. But ATC dosen't care what you fly when they clear you for the ILS....you're allowed to fly the ILS or the LOC.

2. if the glide slope craps out, whats to say the localizer is reading correctly?
Click to expand...

As stated before, different transmitters.

3. whats the harm in going missed and just coming back around? i get paid by the minute, and if im over-guarantee its even better.
Click to expand...

There's no harm at all. Which is why either technique is perfectly correct. There's just the factors I previously mentioned that would figure into whether it's prudent or not to transition from one approach to another. Personally speaking, I would always be prepared to transition from precision to non-precision at any given time; just as when flying a PAR, if there's an ILS backup, I have it up, even though I'm following the PAR controller; transition from precision to precision is available there otherwise missed is still a fine option. Have had to go ILS to LOC 3 times that I can remember in my career, and all three times it went fairly smoothly after the initial "WTF" with the GS.

It's the same as planning for a straight-in non-precision, but having to circle upon breakout. If you're at circling MDA (or get there if not), would you go missed because a circle wasn't initially planned? Or would you circle to land?

Doing either is fine.

BL is, it's personal preference.
 
MikeD said:
BL is, it's personal preference.
Click to expand...

True dat.

Im just a lowely FO so the split second decision wont be made by me.

But in the end most of the time there are 34 people in the back of the plane who we promised to get them to their destination safe and sound. Having a cool off period and coming back around just seems smarter to me.
 
Crockrocket94 said:
Hell, unless I was outside the faf, I probably would not continue the approach if the GS went out.

My beef is when people get their stuff in a bunch over technique, not procedure.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:

Truer words were never spoken.


I get that all the time. I do not particularly train my guys to time at the FAF on an ILS for a backup. I'll always get some smart guy question it.

"Your guy didn't start timing at the FAF when we shot the ILS"

"And"

"Well, what would happen if he lost the glideslope?"

"He would go missed and return for a second approach, or not"

"Why would you want to go missed?"

"Auh, maybe because part of the ILS just took a dump?"

"Why not just fly the LOC?"

"He would, possibly, on the next attempt"

"But then you have to go missed, set up, and shoot the approach again. Big waste of time!"

"Are we in some sort of rush?"

"FORGET IT!!"

"Forgotten"
 
Independent transmitters, but what if someone had entered the ILS critical area and the GS was the first to go.

Not sure what kind of effect that would have, just a thought.
 
v1valarob said:
True dat.

Im just a lowely FO so the split second decision wont be made by me.

But in the end most of the time there are 34 people in the back of the plane who we promised to get them to their destination safe and sound. Having a cool off period and coming back around just seems smarter to me.
Click to expand...

Excatly. I agree. And if that's the prudent decision you want to execute and that you're comfortable with, then it's the correct one for you. And no one can question that.
 
Also depends on the requirements of your mission. To me, I get paid by the hour (finally) so an in no rush. Other people may be more time critical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top