Glideslope question?

good question and dont quote me but if a navaid or part of a navaid (GS) is reported inop it has to be reported to Airways Facility and cannot be turned off untill it has been checked out and verified by AF, then we can only turn if off under their guidance.
 
I wouldn't think so. There could be situations where it's out to service and the maintenance folks need it broadcasting to get their job done.

If the procedure is named "ILS" then ATC should inform you that the glideslope is inoperative during the approach clearance.
 
You can assign an ILS approach "glideslope unusable." I don't know why this would happen instead of just issuing a LOC clearance, perhaps some ILS charts don't have the LOC portion named at the top? I looked at several random charts and they're all named "ILS or LOC," so I don't know. Our book does have the verbiage there for some reason.

4−8−1. APPROACH CLEARANCE

a. Clear aircraft for “standard” or “special”
instrument approach procedures only. To require an
aircraft to execute a particular instrument approach
procedure, specify in the approach clearance the
name of the approach as published on the approach
chart. Where more than one procedure is published on
a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown,
amend the approach clearance to specify execution of
the specific approach to be flown. If only one
instrument approach of a particular type is published,
the approach needs not be identified by the runway
reference. An aircraft conducting an ILS/MLS
approach when the glideslope/glidepath is reported
out of service must be advised at the time an approach
clearance is issued. Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures must commence at an Initial Approach
Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an
Initial Approach Fix. Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures may
begin at an Intermediate Approach Fix for aircraft
that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix
when the conditions of subpara b4 are met. Where
adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may
vector aircraft to the final approach course in
accordance with para 5−9−1, Vectors to Final
Approach Course.

PHRASEOLOGY−

(To authorize a pilot to execute an ILS/MLS approach when
the glideslope/glidepath is out of service),

CLEARED (type) APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE/
GLIDEPATH UNUSABLE.
Click to expand...
 
FM_Weasel said:
You can assign an ILS approach "glideslope unusable." I don't know why this would happen instead of just issuing a LOC clearance, perhaps some ILS charts don't have the LOC portion named at the top? I looked at several random charts and they're all named "ILS or LOC," so I don't know. Our book does have the verbiage there for some reason.
Click to expand...


That's interesting. Reason I ask is the GS was OTS in EWR the other day (enough acronyms?) and they were issuing "ILS, GS unusable" approaches. They're all ILS or LOC approaches though... Couldn't understand why they wouldn't just issue the LOC approach.
 
An airport I was flying into earlier this week had a Notam for the LLZ OTS with an effective date/time of a couple of days earlier, no end date listed. The next entry was for an upcoming GS OTS (including start and end date/time). For some reason it struck me odd because if the localizer is down, does it really matter if the glideslope goes down for maintenance?


(Turns out it does matter since the LLZ came back on line before we even got there. I cancelled the emergency.)
 
FM_Weasel said:
You can assign an ILS approach "glideslope unusable." I don't know why this would happen instead of just issuing a LOC clearance, perhaps some ILS charts don't have the LOC portion named at the top? I looked at several random charts and they're all named "ILS or LOC," so I don't know. Our book does have the verbiage there for some reason.
Click to expand...


The change in name from ILS to ILS or LOC is a relatively recent change. I don't know why the change was made. The only issue I ever saw with it before was when pilots would request a LOC approach on an ILS, the controller would have to explain that he couldn't approve an approach that didn't exist but they could get an ILS and fly it to LOC minimums. So maybe they were just trying to save controller from having to explain that or any associated confusion.
 
There have been a lot of new IAP rule changes lately (naming, course intercept minima etc) over the last year or two. Perhaps our manual is just late in keeping up with the changes making our verbiage redundant.
 
juxtapilot said:
Can you assign an "ILS - Glideslope inop" approach or would it just be a "Localizer?"
Click to expand...

I think that's a function of the procedure title, although now that I look at most everywhere I go, the procedures are "ILS or LOC Y/Z" for those procedures that may be flown glide slope out of service.
 
Change 3 to our manual just came out a few days ago and clarified this. I think, as previously written, the "glideslope unusable" needed to be said regardless, but now they've added exceptions for procedures with both types in the title.

4−8−1. APPROACH CLEARANCE

a...
An aircraft conducting an ILS or LDA
approach when the glideslope is reported out of
service must be advised at the time an approach
clearance is issued unless the title of the published
approach procedure allows (for example, ILS Rwy 05
or LOC Rwy 05).
Click to expand...
 
Houston said:
The change in name from ILS to ILS or LOC is a relatively recent change. I don't know why the change was made. The only issue I ever saw with it before was when pilots would request a LOC approach on an ILS, the controller would have to explain that he couldn't approve an approach that didn't exist but they could get an ILS and fly it to LOC minimums. So maybe they were just trying to save controller from having to explain that or any associated confusion.
Click to expand...

I was told by a reliable source that the change was driven by an ICAO standards change as a result of the KAL 747 that flew into a hill short of the runway. I am looking for the source now.

John
 
juxtapilot said:
That's interesting. Reason I ask is the GS was OTS in EWR the other day (enough acronyms?) and they were issuing "ILS, GS unusable" approaches. They're all ILS or LOC approaches though... Couldn't understand why they wouldn't just issue the LOC approach.
Click to expand...

That's because us EWR approach controllers are all old timers that are used to doing it the old ways. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top