Then you are using slang and doing it wrong.kevenv wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:34 amThis is not correct. As stated in the CapGen on page 45 under multiple procedures, ILS and LOC are considered one approach and not separately identified. If the glide path is unserviceable I will clear an a/c for a LOC approach. There is no need for me to say "ILS Rwy XX, glide path unserviceable". What if the glide path is not unserviceable and one of our training a/c asks to do a LOC approach? Again, "cleared LOC Rwy XX approach".Curiousflyer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:41 pm First of all, you will not be cleared a “localizer” approach if there is an ILS on the chart. You are cleared for the approach based on the name of the chart. “Cleared the ILS Runway XX, Glideslope unserviceable” is the appropriate approach clearance given by ATC if the glideslope is out and you have to fly the localizer only.
Untitled.jpg
It clearly states they are one approach and not separately identified, so why would you?
According to the AIM
“When an approach clearance is issued, the published name
of the approach is used to designate the type of approach “
You should never clear someone a localizer approach if it is not the published name. You should clear them the ILS and advise if the Glideslope is unserviceable, if it is.
If you have a training aircraft wanting to do the loc, you should clear them the ILS as that is the name of the approach.
Now it’s become common practice to hear cleared the loc, or requesting the loc, and in that situation personally clearly an ILS is just going to create confusion.
As a side note, plenty of RNAV approaches have different minimums, including ones without vertical guidance. No one is asking for the LNAV approach, because it doesn’t exist. It’s the name on that chart, RNAV XX.
This is old slang that continues to be used for localizers.