I thought that if you were cleared for the ILS you were also cleared for the LOC appch. Some people add a lost GS procedure to their breif, with time or, more accurately DME off the LOC.

You do not start the timer so you can drop down and do the localizer approach you start the timer so you know when to go missed. Has anyone done an ILS with obstacles on both sides of centerline and the missed approach procedure has a turn? If you lose everything and immediately start the missed approach procedure you could run into a building or terrain.

Well, kind of. The missed approach point for an ILS is DA, not a specified DME or specified time. If you lose the slope, you are basically now doing a LOC approach, which is why you made note of the timing or DME to the MAP in the first place. Also why if you made a note to point out something along the lines of "back up to transition to LOC is..." and you're still above the loc mins you may be good to go depending on the wx at the field.

Time on an LOC approach in a medium/heavy jet is in most case completely irrelevant as a normal approach to the touchdown zone using normal maneuvers would be impossible. Better techniques involve calculating your own VDP. I would hope you start your climb before reaching the actual MAP.

In the United States, if you are clear for the ILS you are also clear to fly the LOC approach. The reason it might be confusing to some pilots is because ATC has to use the actual title of the approach plate to clear you for a particular approach. If the approach is titled ILS 12 and you want to fly the LOC 12, ATC will have to clear you for the ILS 12 approach. If the glideslope is inop, ATC still has to clear you for the ILS 12 approach but should include the comment "glideslope inop" (while not mandatory).

This made is particularly confusing to international flight crews. If you fly in Europe and you want to fly the LOC approach you will look for the LOC approach plate and not the ILS. FAA is slowly meeting ICAO standards naming more and more approach "ILS or LOC" to prevent in part this little confusion and for ATC to clear you for the correct approach.

Lightning bolt shows only on NOS/DOD charts, Jepps do not have a lightning bolt...

Agree, focus on 1 specific approach at a time...

Well, I guess it's sort of obvious but the FAF does 'move' if you were cleared for the approach at a lower than usual altitude.

I agree 100%. This has happened to me. Shooting ILS, lost GS at around 1000 ft. AGL. Set "LOC only" MDA in alt window and proceeded to charted MAP point. Executed missed.

It's actually fairly common, lots of general aviation flight schools teach the "backup approach" technique. I did it in the past too but not at the airline level. Reasons mentioned were much slower approach speeds (which gives you extra time to make a decision) and fuel savings. Again, I believe one approach at a time is the best way to do it...

True, nowadays we also have lots of bald pilots... :D

Of course we do.

We like to anticipate a worst case scenario; creating numerous unnecessary distractions might however turn into a worst case scenario.

I see your point but in my opinion distractions are very dangerous in this critical phase of flight. Also, our approach speeds simply do not allow us to make any mistakes. I've been at 4 airlines and none of them taught the 'backup approach" method.

Not sure I understood what you were saying here but ATC instructions are very clear, they will only clear you for one approach.

You can be cleared for an "ILS" OR for a "LOC" if your approach plate say LOC. If such plate does not exist you'll be cleared for an "ILS glideslope OUT."


Folks, it boils down to safety but also to plain ole' common sense.

Do NOT put any extra distractions on yourselves, we have enough of those as it is and IF something were to happen, trust me, the FAA won't come to defend you to say, "well, technically I guess you can do it..." :rolleyes:

Going missed is very simple, re-brief for a new approach, change the minimums alt. buggs, brief the new missed procedure, etc, and do it again.

You'll never get in trouble for saying, "I thought it'd be safer to go-around and give it another try..."

Just my 2¢

Same here ...

When is the last time you hacked the clock during an approach ?

This is exactly the reason that I was thinking of when I started reading this thread, but I was just too lazy to write it out, but I second this idea. There are definitely some ILS's out there that you can't turn early, and if you lose GS without your time, then you'll have absolutely no idea where you are, or when you are supposed to turn...

What I'm saying is that I've never been cleared for an "ILS glideslope out" and if I wanted to fly a localizer only instead of a full ILS I've never asked. On the other hand, I haven't intentionally flown a LOC when the ILS was operative in about 5 or 6 years. It is possible that some terminology has changed, as the names of approaches have only recently started to.

Knowing what the mins for the loc are and using them as a potential backup is not remotely unsafe IMO. Do airlines teach it? I don't know, maybe maybe not. Have I ever been corrected while briefing it? Nope. What's one more number or a two second glance at an approach plate?

Ok, we'll agree to disagree here.

- At my current airline (but also other airlines I've been at) for an ILS we start dropping the flaps and the gear when the glide slope becomes alive.

- For a non-prec approach however we are supposed to be fully configured by the time we hit the final approach fix.

Lets say we're shooting your scenario approach where we are on an ILS, on the glide slope (past what would be the non-prec FAF - Maltese Cross) and about to ask for the last notch of flaps (in other words still slowing).

Right then we lose the GS and according to you we should now transition to a LOC approach. However, since we were not fully configured prior to the non-prec. FAF we are required to go missed (see above).
Also, if we decide to continue, the timing will be off because we're still slowing down and the time is predicated on a constant final approach speed.

What about the pilot monitoring (pilot-not-flying) call outs? Hopefully your PNF won't miss the 1,000 and 500 foot callouts (or whichever altitudes you call out on an approach).

Also, don't forget to change your minimums buggs while you're trying to get to the MDA, oh and what was that VDP again?

Can I do it? You bet you and I have done it numerous times in the past in smaller airplanes. However, would I want to do it flying passengers or packages for that matter in transport category aircraft? No way.

If you honestly believe that all those additional distractions are "not remotely unsafe" as you phrased it my hat is off for you. You're simply a better pilot than I am.

I am not saying it in a disparaging way; I simply admit that what you consider perfectly safe would be an undue distracting burden for me possibly affecting my performance.

I totally agree with a lot of your post, by all means per your airline's policies all of the opening scenarios should normally result in a missed approach.

So now lets assume that we were fully configured and on speed by the FAF (which is the policy at mine). We start down the slope and then lose it, I wouldn't have an issue with continuing down to the MDA. Maybe I had the chance to reset the bugs, maybe the PNF took care of it. But those are pilot aids and they're there to provide backup to me and to the PNF. The primary means is still either me or the PNF noting that we're at minimums and not what the little GPWS or RA or whatever particular system's voice it is on that specific plane's voice tells me. Sure you can just execute the missed and be perfectly safe and fine but I also beleive you could continue and be safe and fine. If you're flying and I'm the PNF and you chose to go missed, great, it's your perogative and I'm not gonna give you grief about it. Hey, maybe I didn't like the way it was going and I decided to go missed too. I'm sure we can both completely agree that flying is dynamic.

I'm not meaning that in a disparaging way either. I just don't like things to get to the point where the most important thing is the computer taking care of business and me watching it helplessly. I look at it this way. We may have become more simply systems managers in modern aircraft but we are all still pilots. Passengers or boxes or nothing in the back, we're still supposed to be able to fly the plane to include instruments. All those nifty toys are great additions to SA and they're great safety backups. However, they are simply pilot aids. I think they've become too much of a crutch for many people.

I hope that post came out the way I intended. I didn't proofread. :D

Are you saying that your airline's policy to have the gear down, full flaps and have already slowed down to your final approach speed prior to reaching the FAF for the non-prec. (which would be same as my airline) but also prior to intercepting the glide slope for prec. approaches? If so, are you telling me that you're flying ~130 knots or so from the moment you intercept the GS until you touch down each time you shoot an ILS?

Technically, yes, we're supposed to be doing exactly that according to the profiles. 1 mile prior to the FAF for precision apps and 3 miles prior for non-precision. Our approach speed is ref+10. So we are in theory supposed to be flying anywhere between 115-135 kts all the way from the published g/s intercept altitude down to the runway in this case. In reality, you can't do that in most airports with traffic on final and not be a huge pain to everyone else in the pattern. Of course we will do whatever to help the flow of traffic - 170 to the marker, 230 to the marker, 160, whatever, and technically be in violation of our profiles and it's kind of expected.

Canpa
 

How may of you are doing CANPA, (Constant Angle Non Precision Approach), procedures? It kinda makes the idea of transition to a LOC impossible. I would still not have switched to the loc if we were still doing dive and drive approaches but I thought I'd throw this in for discussion.

Haven't heard that term but are you referring to RNAV like approaches where the MDA is replaced by a DA and you never level off at the "DA" but land or go missed as in an ILS?

If so, the whole purpose of those approaches is to make sure you don't have to do the dive & drive LOC approaches. Safer, quieter and easier to fly. In a nutshell you're converting a non-prec. approach to a prec. approach.

that is correct