ILS OR LOC/DME Approach

[Dazzler]

So I was shooting some simulated instrument approaches today (thanks again to JEP for safety-piloting) and one of the approaches was this one...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0902/05202ILD27.PDF

I told the controller that I wanted to perform the LOC/DME approach (i.e. Localizer only, no glideslope) but she told me that she still needed to clear me for the ILS approach. Sure enough, a moment later she cleared me for ILS 27 KANE.

I would have thought that, because the chart specifically spells out ILS OR LOC/DME approaches, they would be treated as separate approach types, and I would be cleared for a LOC/DME approach.

 

[Clocks]

Is there a NOTAM about it?

 

[Dazzler]

Is there a NOTAM about it?

Wasn't told about one when I called for briefings (twice)

 

[tgrayson]

I would have thought that, because the chart specifically spells out ILS OR LOC/DME approaches, they would be treated as separate approach types, and I would be cleared for a LOC/DME approach.

Probably just a case of inertia. These things were only ILS' for so long, and they're gradually being renamed. The controller simply may not have noticed the name change.

 

[Rocketman99]

This reminds me almost exactly of a thread I was involved in on "that other site" a few weeks ago. I've still never asked for a "localizer" approach when doing one, but I also haven't done one in about 5 years outside of sims.

 

[papag]

So I was shooting some simulated instrument approaches today (thanks again to JEP for safety-piloting) and one of the approaches was this one...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0902/05202ILD27.PDF

I told the controller that I wanted to perform the LOC/DME approach (i.e. Localizer only, no glideslope) but she told me that she still needed to clear me for the ILS approach. Sure enough, a moment later she cleared me for ILS 27 KANE.

I would have thought that, because the chart specifically spells out ILS OR LOC/DME approaches, they would be treated as separate approach types, and I would be cleared for a LOC/DME approach.

We get many approach plate updates and sometimes dont realize there is a published LOC only approach. By all means tell us, "its published" otherwise you will hear ,"cleared for the ILS RY XX approach and you can choose to follow the GS or not etc. Moral of the story is if its published and we dont know it, tell us!!!!!!!!! Please lets talk.

 

[woutlaw]

I love that approach. I use it for teaching the 430.

When guys can figure out how to fly it using the Garmin alone (ie, no DME in the airplane) they've reached the "correlation" level of learning and get a cookie.

Back on topic though, I'm pretty certain I've been "cleared for the ILS xx, glideslope is out of service" more than once. Always struck me as being sorta weird since at that point it's the LOC approach but I didn't get hung up on it.

By the way, you MSP tracon folks rock. Seriously. Wiscair xxx says "thanks."

So I was shooting some simulated instrument approaches today (thanks again to JEP for safety-piloting) and one of the approaches was this one...

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0902/05202ILD27.PDF

I told the controller that I wanted to perform the LOC/DME approach (i.e. Localizer only, no glideslope) but she told me that she still needed to clear me for the ILS approach. Sure enough, a moment later she cleared me for ILS 27 KANE.

I would have thought that, because the chart specifically spells out ILS OR LOC/DME approaches, they would be treated as separate approach types, and I would be cleared for a LOC/DME approach.

 

[Dazzler]

By the way, you MSP tracon folks rock. Seriously.

:yeahthat:

 

[BrewMaster]

:yeahthat:

:yeahthat:

 

[Sidious]

When guys can figure out how to fly it using the Garmin alone (ie, no DME in the airplane) they've reached the "correlation" level of learning and get a cookie.

Hmmm... What exactly do you mean? I just looked at the approach and am not following. Do you mean overlaying the approach on the 430?

 

[woutlaw]

Hmmm... What exactly do you mean? I just looked at the approach and am not following. Do you mean overlaying the approach on the 430?

The guy loads and activates the approach in the 430, at which point I ask "how are you going to identify the step-down fix that keeps us from hitting that big ol' antenna in between BOKYA and the runway?"

Usually, they don't even realize there is a step-down fix, but once they get past that there's some work to be done since KOGEE isn't included as part of the approach waypoints.

(Edit to add the issue is the same with any ILS that includes a step-down fix when flying it LOC-only, not just this particular approach. The step-down fixes won't be in the approach due to the standard for coding the database, which only includes the FAF and MAP on a precision approach. The unit doesn't have anyway of knowing you're NOT flying the ILS. Hopefully this will get changed, which is what I suggested both Jepp and Garmin push for when I was researching the question.)

One way is legal, but a pain. The other probably isn't legal but it's safe and easier. There are probably third and fourth ways as well.

 

[ghogue]

Back on topic though, I'm pretty certain I've been "cleared for the ILS xx, glideslope is out of service" more than once. Always struck me as being sorta weird since at that point it's the LOC approach but I didn't get hung up on it.

This is why they do this:

5-4-6. Approach Clearance
d. The name of an instrument approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, such as the glideslope on an Instrument Landing System, is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable.

When the approach is titled ILS RWY 14, e.g., it's still an ILS (not a LOC approach) even when the GS is out of service and the controller is required to refer to it as such. In other words, you are flying an ILS approach to localizer minimums. Now that many of the ILS's are being retitled as ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 14 (e.g.), they are permitted to refer to it as a LOC approach when they issue the clearance.

This is important since some airports have separate ILS and LOC approaches to the same runway, and the differences are more than just the minimums you descend to. They are different procedures entirely. Take a look at Arcata, CA (KACV). They have the ILS 32 and the ILS OR LOC/DME 32 approaches.

 

[MikeD]

This is why they do this:

5-4-6. Approach Clearance
d. The name of an instrument approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, such as the glideslope on an Instrument Landing System, is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable.

When the approach is titled ILS RWY 14, e.g., it's still an ILS (not a LOC approach) even when the GS is out of service and the controller is required to refer to it as such. In other words, you are flying an ILS approach to localizer minimums. Now that many of the ILS's are being retitled as ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 14 (e.g.), they are permitted to refer to it as a LOC approach when they issue the clearance.

This is important since some airports have separate ILS and LOC approaches to the same runway, and the differences are more than just the minimums you descend to. They are different procedures entirely. Take a look at Arcata, CA (KACV). They have the ILS 32 and the ILS or LOC/DME 32 approaches.

Agree. For a straight ILS approach, that's what ATC will clear you for. What you fly (LOC portion, step downs, LOC mins) is up to you.

 

[woutlaw]

This is why they do this:

5-4-6. Approach Clearance
d. The name of an instrument approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, such as the glideslope on an Instrument Landing System, is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable.

Makes sense to me. The AIM is a beautiful thing.

 

[Rocketman99]

Agree. For a straight ILS approach, that's what ATC will clear you for. What you fly (LOC portion, step downs, LOC mins) is up to you.

Funny you mention that because that exact thing is what pretty much every person in the other thread on the other forum was arguing against me on. I'm with you.

 

[MikeD]

Funny you mention that because that exact thing is what pretty much every person in the other thread on the other forum was arguing against me on. I'm with you.

You're absolutely right. For an ILS (ILS only, as written, not "ILS or LOC/DME RWY 5", for example), if there are LOC mins depicted, ATC has to clear you for the ILS since it's the only procedure published. You're free to fly the LOC profile and mins thereafter. However any sidestep or circling would have to be separately cleared.

On this approach, you wouldn't need a separate or specific clearance to fly down to the DME mins, you'd just do it if you have it:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0903/00074VT30C.PDF

Bonus question for anyone: Why the different holding instructions depicted?

 

[tgrayson]

Bonus question for anyone: Why the different holding instructions depicted?

You mean TACAN vs non-TACAN aircraft? Because TACAN aircraft can't hold over a VORTAC (or TACAN).

 

[MikeD]

You mean TACAN vs non-TACAN aircraft? Because TACAN aircraft can't hold over a VORTAC (or TACAN).

Precisely. Good work! :rawk:

 

[400A]

Precisely. Good work! :rawk:

Why is that (unless I is having a huge brain fart and the answer is staring me in the face)?

 

[MikeD]

Why is that (unless I is having a huge brain fart and the answer is staring me in the face)?

TACAN equipped aircraft have no TO/FROM flag, thus there's no positive indication of staton passage; only a reversal in DME. For that reason, they must hold on a radial/DME; can't hold at the VORTAC or TACAN.