1. Circle-to-landI can think of one, but I want to hear what you folks are thinking.
Not so.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'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.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.
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."Cleared for the ILS XX, GS out of service"
I completely agree. An ILS consists of 3 things that we all know, a LOC, GS, and MB. If you do not have any of those, you are not flying an ILS, period!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 disagree with the backcourse being used as an ILS non-prec. Grant it, you are using the equipment from the ILS, but it is considered a straight-in non-prec approach. It would say something like LOC/DME BC RWY ##. No where in there does it say anything about an ILS.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.
No.If the GS is out, they you don't have an ILS, just a LOC, and you would be cleared for the LOC approach.
That's the way it's *supposed* to be done, but I have certainly been cleared for the LOC, even when there is no published procedure of that name. This was after telling the student that we would still be cleared for the ILS, even though we asked for the LOC.y # you will always, always be cleared "Cleared for ILS #, GS out of service".
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.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.
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.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.
New in respect to many of the pilots not flying in these environments.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."
I did read, but your two paragraphs contradicted each other, which gives the reader no idea of what you believe or what you're saying.Thats why I stated that very same thing in the next paragraph. Thanks for reading.
My dear debating friend, words are funny things. you see that word there? It says THOUGH. That words sets up the context that what was previously mentioned has an after thought to it. Thus, as is clearly written, my original thought had an after thought stating the FACT that a side step would indeed be an example of an ILS as a non precision approach.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.