meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Ahh... makes much more practical sense that they add the "GS inop" wording to the clearance.
Circling or straight-in minimums?
- Thread starter Van_Hoolio
- Start date
tgrayson
New Member
Something has changed, though, in the last 2-3 years. Most ILS' are now published as "ILS or LOC 28". Since there is an "OR" in the title, ATC has the latitude to clear you for either one.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
Yup, still a couple straight ILS plates with LOC mins too, plus I am starting to see more plates that are just ILS with ILS mins, and plates with LOC names and LOC mins.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
This brings up an interesting point though..
I was helping a student study for the instrument knowledge test and there is a question phrased exactly like this -
Immediately after passing the final approach fix inbound during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the glide slope warning flag appears. The pilot is ..
B) permitted to continue the approach and descend to the localizer MDA.
The reference it gives is AIM 1-1-9.
I can NOT find this in AIM 1-1-9.
Thoughts?
tgrayson
New Member
MEM is still that way. Sometimes, they'll still clear you for the LOC if you ask for a LOC, but I agree, the proper clearance is for the ILS. Of course, when we're shooting practice approaches, they really can't say "GS unusable" because it's not. ;-)
ATC says they don't particularly care if you fly the LOC profile instead of the ILS, but they want to know about it because their MSAW goes off when you start the "chop and drop" on the NP approach. At a satellite airport, it doesn't matter at all.
tgrayson
New Member
I'm not aware of anything in the AIM that specifically authorizes this procedure. However, they may be getting from this statement:
2. Inoperative glide slope. When the glide slope fails, the ILS reverts to a nonprecision localizer approach.
Yes, I agree, it doesn't state what the question is looking for.
I would also argue now that the "or LOC" is being added to the ILS plates, you would need a specific clearance to fly that profile.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
I believe that the LOC and ILS are indeed two seperate approaches and someone flying the ILS cannot just decide to fly the LOC if they feel like it.
There is another question that discusses the GS going inop on the approach but you have the VASI insight. It tells to continue inbound on the approach and report the problem to ATC. I agree with this as its what I'd do but the reference given here is also AIM 1-1-9 and again, I dont find it.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
On nearly every approach plate I have for the SW US, there are LOC mins listed on the ILS plates.
tgrayson
New Member
Wait a minute, didn't you just post a while back that
The LOC and ILS approaches are infact, two separate approaches.
You were correct. These are two separate approaches that are put on the same approach plate (normally, but not always.) When the FAA designs the approaches, they don't draw the picture you see, but instead fill out a form. Text only. The chart makers convert the text to pictures. The ILS goes on form 8260-3 and the LOC goes on form 8260-5.
I don't teach people to convert to a LOC if the GS fails. I suggest going missed and then restarting the approach with the LOC briefed. While switching over from a PA to a NPA isn't a big deal in most parts of the country, sometimes the NPA has a lot of stepdown fixes on the FAC that could bring some situational awareness issues. Better not to rush things.
tgrayson
New Member
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to my comment about the GS going inop with the VASI in sight and continuing the approach, that is exactly what I'd do regardless of them being two seperate approaches. If I have a visual cue, such as the PAPI or VASI, I am not going to execute a missed.
tgrayson
New Member
I didn't see the context, but sure, if you have the visuals there's no point in going missed.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Yes. Are you making an argument for something?
Nope. But... if the GS goes inop prior to commencing the approach and cleared for the ILS w/ inop GS, the mins I'd use would be using the GS Out mins published.
What was your point?
tgrayson
New Member
Agreed.
Anyway, it's academic; I can't imagine anyone caring that you flew the LOC instead of the ILS, except for the MSAW thing.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
tgrayson
New Member
Minimum Safe Altitude Warning. ATC's computer freak out when your altitude deviates too radically from where it should be on an approach. If they expect you to fly the glideslope and instead you do a NPA descent to MDA, you will drop far below the glideslope which will kick off their alarms.
dc3flyer
Well-Known Member
I have specifically asked for a LOC approach many times and been cleared for the ILS.
You are right about the alarms. Especially now, with a change in the rules, they will even tell you they are getting a low altitude alert, but I have yet to have a controller get upset or say anything about me choping and dropping for the LOC instead of following the GS.
You are right about the alarms. Especially now, with a change in the rules, they will even tell you they are getting a low altitude alert, but I have yet to have a controller get upset or say anything about me choping and dropping for the LOC instead of following the GS.
