ILS or LOC RWY ??

trafficinsight said:
Brief the ILS but set your timer if necessary so that if you do lose the glideslope you continue to track the localizer until the localizer missed approach point, at which time you fly the missed approach procedure.
Click to expand...

Hacking the clock is the thing I always forget to do in this situation. Then again, everything I fly these days is DME or advanced-nav equipped, so if I get lost, I'm a dummy and I need to pick up a new line of work.

Careful about intermediate step-down altitudes between the FAF and the missed approach point for the localizer. If the glideslope fails below an intermediate step-down altitude for the localizer approach, I'm going missed. I'll probably go around regardless, unless I can clearly see the runway, in which case I'll say something like "Tower, Beercan 217, we lost the glideslope but have the runway in sight." IMC? We get to try again.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Hacking the clock is the thing I always forget to do in this situation. Then again, everything I fly these days is DME or advanced-nav equipped, so if I get lost, I'm a dummy and I need to pick up a new line of work.

Careful about intermediate step-down altitudes between the FAF and the missed approach point for the localizer. If the glideslope fails below an intermediate step-down altitude for the localizer approach, I'm going missed. I'll probably go around regardless, unless I can clearly see the runway, in which case I'll say something like "Tower, Beercan 217, we lost the glideslope but have the runway in sight." IMC? We get to try again.
Click to expand...

Are there any intermediate step-downs on a timing-only approach? I'm almost positive there wouldn't be any, but I'd have to review the TERPs manual again to make sure.

I think if you were flying an approach that had an intermediate step-down, either DME would be required, or there would be non-DME minimums equal to the step-down altitude. If you had DME, and you were on glideslope when the glideslope quit, you could just level momentarily and then check the DME against the next step down altitude. If you were non-DME, you would just go down to the non-DME MDA.

As for glideslope failing "below" an intermediate step down... I don't think that's possible either (if you were on glideslope). I think the glideslope is guaranteed to keep you above the intermediate step-downs... again, another thing I need to review in the TERPs manual, but IIRC, that's the case.
 
fish314 said:
As for glideslope failing "below" an intermediate step down... I don't think that's possible either (if you were on glideslope). I think the glideslope is guaranteed to keep you above the intermediate step-downs... again, another thing I need to review in the TERPs manual, but IIRC, that's the case.
Click to expand...

Ive never seen any. The only time Ive seen the GS lower than the stepdowns when past the FAF, is when below the non-precision MDA anyway at end-game.
 
There are NEVER intermediate step-down altitudes below glideslope. If you are on glideslope, you will be at or above any step-down altitudes.
Hacking the clock and continuing on LOC only to MDA should always be an option. You may not have the option of going around.
And this option is absolutely free.
 
nosehair said:
There are NEVER intermediate step-down altitudes below glideslope. If you are on glideslope, you will be at or above any step-down altitudes.
Hacking the clock and continuing on LOC only to MDA should always be an option. You may not have the option of going around.
And this option is absolutely free.
Click to expand...

Thats why I don't get these people who are worried about GS failures below a LOC stepdown. It's almost like some made-up boogyman. If it fails, and knowing where you are DME-wise, you should know how low you can descend to.
 
nosehair said:
There are NEVER intermediate step-down altitudes below glideslope. If you are on glideslope, you will be at or above any step-down altitudes.
Click to expand...
FALSE.
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia.../info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11009.pdfFunny
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11009.pdf

Funny story, I was under the same impression while at Flight Safety. I asked my instructor about the legality of following the GS all the way down and if Ill always stay above the step downs. He didn't know, so he went to ask people that did. Next day, he comes back with this FAA INFO, which JUST came out. Faa was reading my mind...
 
scooter2525 said:
FALSE.

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11009.pdf


Funny story, I was under the same impression while at Flight Safety. I asked my instructor about the legality of following the GS all the way down and if Ill always stay above the step downs. He didn't know, so he went to ask people that did. Next day, he comes back with this FAA INFO, which JUST came out. Faa was reading my mind...
Click to expand...

This publication discusses......

.....pilots are cautioned to adhere to published step-down fixes located outside the Final Approach Segment on an ILS approach.
Click to expand...
Here, Im talking inside the final approach segment, from FAF to MAP. That's why we're talking timing considerations, knowing where you are in relation to the stepdowns (if any), etc; and hence if flexing to a LOC is feasible or not.
 
Aviator524 said:
Hey guys,

When I went through my instrument training my instructor always told me to brief the Localizer approach in addition to the ILS when performing an ILS approach. I was told begin my timer when reaching the LOC FAF, so that I could revert to the LOC approach in the event that the GS fails during the ILS approach. Now that I am teaching students of my own I began thinking that this might not be a great idea to teach. My reasoning is because you were cleared for an ILS approach, not a LOC approach by ATC. I think that I personally would perform the missed approach, let ATC know about the failure, and get set up for a new approach. But I may be wrong. What do some of you guys think?
Click to expand...

I agree it's better to just go missed and try it again. If you're flying 121 or 135 your company OpSpecs or procedures may also require you to go missed with the loss of a glideslope.

From a CRM perspective, briefing the ILS and the LOC stepdowns might be a bit much for every single ILS you fly every day, for handling an anomaly that is quite rare. You're at risk of information overload. Keep the brief concise and relevant.

Personally if we're in hard IMC and I lose the GS I am going missed-I don't know what failed-did something on the ground or on my airplane fail? This isn't a contest, and the people in the back are expecting us to always choose the safest option.
 
pscraig said:
From a CRM perspective, briefing the ILS and the LOC stepdowns might be a bit much for every single ILS you fly every day, for handling an anomaly that is quite rare. You're at risk of information overload. Keep the brief concise and relevant.

Personally if we're in hard IMC and I lose the GS I am going missed-I don't know what failed-did something on the ground or on my airplane fail? This isn't a contest, and the people in the back are expecting us to always choose the safest option.
Click to expand...

Like anything, it would depend. Depends on the conditions. For me, briefing an ILS and LOC on the same IAP has never been an info overload issue whether single pilot or crew, although like anyone I'd prefer to only have to fly one of them and not flex to the other if I didn't have to.

Where it depends is in hard IMC, it depends what my conditions are. Things like icing and thunderstorm activity may not be something Id want to go missed back into if I have a safe ability to flex to a backup on the same approach. So the "depends" factor comes in in that way. With regards to whether it's a ground system failure or not, Im not as much worried about the GS failing as I would be the LOC failing.

As you say, some may be required to go around. Others may simply train to. Im not required to in my ops, so I have some more flexibility to make a decision either way than others may. Insofar as it being a safety issue, I don't really see a major problem there.
 
MikeD said:
Like anything, it would depend. Depends on the conditions. For me, briefing an ILS and LOC on the same IAP has never been an info overload issue whether single pilot or crew, although like anyone I'd prefer to only have to fly one of them and not flex to the other if I didn't have to.

Where it depends is in hard IMC, it depends what my conditions are. Things like icing and thunderstorm activity may not be something Id want to go missed back into if I have a safe ability to flex to a backup on the same approach. So the "depends" factor comes in in that way. With regards to whether it's a ground system failure or not, Im not as much worried about the GS failing as I would be the LOC failing.

As you say, some may be required to go around. Others may simply train to. Im not required to in my ops, so I have some more flexibility to make a decision either way than others may. Insofar as it being a safety issue, I don't really see a major problem there.
Click to expand...

At that point, in my operation, you're likely talking about having to flex those emergency declaration muscles, and if things start failing like that, and there's truly no option but to continue the approach, I'd personally be switching to FMS data pretty quickly. It's accurate as hell, and while not legal, if the only safe option is to get on the ground, then it'll get me there.

Get on the ground, ASAP it, and go to the hotel.
 
jtrain609 said:
At that point, in my operation, you're likely talking about having to flex those emergency declaration muscles, and if things start failing like that, and there's truly no option but to continue the approach, I'd personally be switching to FMS data pretty quickly. It's accurate as hell, and while not legal, if the only safe option is to get on the ground, then it'll get me there.

Get on the ground, ASAP it, and go to the hotel.
Click to expand...

And thats the thing, there could be any number of situations, or regulatory issues by operator/operation, etc, etc; where there can't really be one solid answer to the overall question. Some are limited by regulation or ops specs, others are limited by personal desire or ability/experience, others are unlimited, and all can be affected by situational factors. None are right or wrong. As many have alluded, follow your regulatory guidance for your operation (if any), or do whatever you're comfortable with if there is no specific guidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top