ILS as a non-precision app???
- Thread starter Nark
- Start date
tgrayson
New Member
tgrayson
New Member
Not so.
http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0812/00375IL28L.PDF
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.
ILS37R
Well-Known Member
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.
Tgrayson's second option of a sidestep is probably more in the spirit of the question, but by the letter it sounds to me like a discussion of ground equipment.
Chief Captain
Well-Known Member
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?
JulietBravo
On Call, On Demand
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!
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.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0812/00444LDBC17.PDF
So again, back to the ILS. If you have those 3 requirements, and you are using all of them, but not flying down to the straight-in mins, (i.e. side-step or circle-to-land) you are using the ILS as a non-precsion approach.
BajtheJino
I'm looking at you.
No.
When I have had the opportunity to fly ILS approaches when the glide slope is out unless the plate is marked ILS or LOC Rny # you will always, always be cleared "Cleared for ILS #, GS out of service". You can't rename approachs.
tgrayson
New Member
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.
tgrayson
New Member
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.
:yeahthat:
Absolutely correct. If the glideslope was inop, it would not be an ILS.
The reason that the side step is a non-precision is that at the FAF (Arrival at the DH for the nonprecision minimums and established on the glide slope) you are not within 30 degrees of runway centerline on the runway of intended use. That makes it a non-precision approach.
True True! However, you wouldnt use the ILS minimums for the approach cause GS is out therefore you would be flying the ILS approach using LOC minimums.
My answer would be the ILS circle to land for sure but the other evades me. It is definately 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.
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. Their considered to be LOC with a glideslope just like an ILS but not. Point is you use LOC minimums for the approach. Doesnt really help with the question but a neat Gwiz thing some havent seen yet. I flew one into Roanoke and another into Hawaii.
Make sure you let us know what the check airman said the answer was when you do your check ride
tgrayson
New Member
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.
Those are hardly new. They're not considered "precision", but "approach with vertical guidance."
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."
New in respect to many of the pilots not flying in these environments.
According to the FAR/AIM
The LDA is not aligned with the runway. Straight-in minimums may be
published where alignment does not exceed 30 degrees between the course
and runway. Circling minimums only are published where this alignment
exceeds 30 degrees.published where alignment does not exceed 30 degrees between the course
and runway. Circling minimums only are published where this alignment
The AIM clearly states that the LDA is NOT a precision nor is it a non precision approach. It is classified as a APV (Approach with Vertical guidance)
7.
TERPS criteria are provided for the following types of instrument approach
procedures:
(a)
(a)
Precision Approach (PA). An instrument approach based on a navigation system
that provides course and glidepath deviation information meeting the precision
standards of ICAO Annex 10. For example, PAR, ILS, and GLS are precision
approaches.
(b)
standards of ICAO Annex 10. For example, PAR, ILS, and GLS are precision
approaches.
(b)
Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course and glidepath deviation information. For example, Baro-VNAV, LDA with glidepath, LNAV/VNAV and LPV are APV approaches.
(c)
Nonprecision Approach (NPA). An instrument approach based on a navigation
system which provides course deviation information, but no glidepath deviation
information. For example, VOR, NDB and LNAV. As noted in subparagraph h,
Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) on Nonprecision Approaches, some approach
procedures may provide a Vertical Descent Angle as an aid in flying a stabilized
approach, without requiring its use in order to fly the procedure. This does not makeinformation. For example, VOR, NDB and LNAV. As noted in subparagraph h,
Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) on Nonprecision Approaches, some approach
procedures may provide a Vertical Descent Angle as an aid in flying a stabilized
tgrayson
New Member
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.
Likewise, you've quoted numerous paragraphs from the AIM, which support what I said, but I have no idea about whether you're posting them in agreement or if you consider them to support some other point of view.
A post, like any written document, should tell a story.
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.
Additionally, you claimed I was saying the an LDA was a precision approach which is, once again, inaccurate. I stated the LDA is "other than precision" approach.
Finally, these boards are for a learning environment not a forum to satisfy your uncontrolling urge to debate. Please allow it to be the a friendly place wherein myself and others may be allowed to learn without constantly having to "redeem" themselves to you.:rawk:
deadstick
Well-Known Member
I yield to tgrayson. I just saw that the SSM in Jepps are listed as a "MDA(H)." I just don't remember ever seeing one.
http://www.jeppesen.com/download/aopa/mar00aopa.pdf
http://www.jeppesen.com/download/aopa/mar00aopa.pdf
