Originally Posted by flensr

You're ok with it because you haven't read through the accident reports from the false glideslope lock-on mishaps that happened in the past. Or you did but you've forgotten them. I have no idea if the technology in our receivers has been updated to better reject false glidepath lock-on, but this is one of the primary reasons why we're supposed to verify the final approach fix and altitude on instrument approaches. The USAF found out the hard way and before they implemented a universal rule about identifying the FAF before starting down, they planted a few in the dirt several miles short of the runway from false ILS glidepath lock-on mishaps.

Yea, it "never happens". Except it did before the procedures were the way they are today, and they all died miles short of the runway on centerline with the needles centered. So we're supposed to take a couple of steps in order to help make sure it doesn't happen to us. As far as I know, since the tighter ILS procedures have been adopted there hasn't been a false glidepath lock-on mishap in the US. That doesn't mean the threat isn't there, because the underlying technology is still the same. It simply means we're doing it right and our procedures are working.

Originally Posted by e6bpilot

I J/S on a Delta 737 and they used approach mode when on a vector for a real (not visual) ILS. Nobody died. Although I didn't query the crew, I assumed this (along with setting the MAA) was their procedure.

Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan

We armed approach when cleared for the approach in the -300 and -400 at USAir back in the 90s and it worked just fine.

I suspect that some things are just Southwestisms... tribal techcedure that eventually finds its way into a manual. Once it's in there it takes a commandment from Herb from beyond the grave to change it.

Originally Posted by Grumpyaviator

Every other airline, vorloc cleared to intercept, APP when cleared for the approach. We must be thonle ones in the industry doing it right.

Originally Posted by Noconcessions

Airtran- Auto throttles to touchdown, IAN, set MAP at fix, auto land, fly over the fix on visuals, stable and spooled at fix. No duck under to land in first 1000-1500 feet. Didn't brief standard procedures, didn't write ATIS on paper, didn't manually load W&B, didn't do scheduling's job, didn't do maintenance's job, went to end of longest line and requested private screening on randoms....... on and on. BUT, no swag points.

Originally Posted by e6bpilot

I J/S on a Delta 737 and they used approach mode when on a vector for a real (not visual) ILS. Nobody died. Although I didn't query the crew, I assumed this (along with setting the MAA) was their procedure.

Originally Posted by flensr

You're ok with it because you haven't read through the accident reports from the false glideslope lock-on mishaps that happened in the past. Or you did but you've forgotten them. I have no idea if the technology in our receivers has been updated to better reject false glidepath lock-on, but this is one of the primary reasons why we're supposed to verify the final approach fix and altitude on instrument approaches. The USAF found out the hard way and before they implemented a universal rule about identifying the FAF before starting down, they planted a few in the dirt several miles short of the runway from false ILS glidepath lock-on mishaps.

Yea, it "never happens". Except it did before the procedures were the way they are today, and they all died miles short of the runway on centerline with the needles centered. So we're supposed to take a couple of steps in order to help make sure it doesn't happen to us. As far as I know, since the tighter ILS procedures have been adopted there hasn't been a false glidepath lock-on mishap in the US. That doesn't mean the threat isn't there, because the underlying technology is still the same. It simply means we're doing it right and our procedures are working.

Originally Posted by Crockrocket95

Ive never had the plane go off the rails when I just selected APP. I hate the VORLOC then APP method... it's just more work because we like to do more work.