It's not really switching approaches. However, if I'm on the ILS, I don't brief the step-down altitudes for the LOC approach - and I don't think I'm alone on this. Additionally, many aircraft use different configurations for precision and non-precision approaches.

 

Well I do brief the step downs on the ILS, just for this very reason. I am not going to burn a couple $ in fuel to go around on an approach that I can finish. I guess if you aircraft requires a change in config, then well I guess, but I have never heard of that.

My whole thing is not having to go around unnecessarily and waste gas and ultimately your tax dollars. I think that silly.

If you go 1 dot below and you are still above LOC mins do you still go around? or you do you recapture the GS? cause if you never recapture you can still descend to the LOC mins and continue the approach. Again to facilitate not having to go around.

 

You are switching approaches, a LOC Approach is seperate from an ILS Approach. They have different minimums, different MAPs, different FAFs, one's precision and the other is not. They share the same frequency, that is true, but that does not make them the same approach.

Whether or not you should switch from one approach to the other if the GS fails, well that is up to you and the current situation you are in, and whether you are capable of switching to the other approach, or whether it would be safer to go missed and setup for another approach.

 

Ok they have different mins, but they have the same Freq and the same Final Approach course. A LOC is a component of an ILS. Its not like you are switching from a GPS to a NDB or VOR. You are using the same radios and the same components and the same inbound course. Which requires very little to change except the SA to know the mins that you are using for both.

I agree if you have to change your configuration and it makes it unsafe for you to continue then by all means go around. But in a C172, you don't have to, so I wouldn't just go around. Anybody out there fly a plane that has different configurations for NON-Precision and Precision please let me know, I have never heard of that. I am not talking about config for circling approaches I am talking about non-precision and precision. Everything that I have flown so far has required final setup at the FAF, except for circleing approaches which is a different animal that I dont want to get into an discussion about now. I am curious about these planes and their configs.

 

if you are still above the MDA, why not. Just level out and see what you've got. If you see the runway, make the changes that are necessary. If not, go missed. If you can't make the changes safely, go missed. But if you are already there, might as well see if its going to be worth going around, if you are actually going to break out or not.

 

Not all of us are burning tax dollars.

 

Ryan's B727 procedures have different configurations for precision/non-precision approaches; it differs in the flap settings used. I can dig up the Ops manuals next time I go home if you're really interested...

 

No thats cool I was just wondering which aircraft do that. I have never been exposed to one that did. In that case then I guess going around would have to be the option.

But since my plane doesnt do that, and I dont wanna waste your tax dollars then I am gonna continue on the LOC...

 

The Air Force had a different philosophy on loss of glideslope than what I've encountered in the rest of the world. In the Air Force, the "Localizer" was just another way of flying the ILS approach. Losing the glideslope was no big deal -- it was a favorite exercise in the Simulator. We were trained, conditioned, expected to continue the approach using Localizer only procedures.

Out of the Air Force, they're treated as two completely different approaches, with different clearances, and different procedures. The philosophy is exactly opposite. Lose the glideslope, lose the approach.



Either way, the decision should never be influenced by money, tax dollars or otherwise. I hope you were being sarcastic about that.









.

 

Absolutely