Approach clearance

[Braun]

Hey guys,

I have a question to which I know there is an answer on these boards somewhere but I couldn't find it through a search. This question would be for any IFR controller here.

Say you are clearing an aircraft for an ILS 25 approach but the glidepath is U/S, what phraseology would you use and if you have any documentation to back it up that would be great.

thanks guys,

[photofly]

I am not an IFR controller, but how about "CLEARED LOCALIZER RUNWAY 25 APPROACH"?

[Braun]

I am not an IFR controller, but how about "CLEARED LOCALIZER RUNWAY 25 APPROACH"?

I don't believe it is correct but I am not 100%. I remember something about having to clear aircraft for the approach as it is written on the approach plate.

So it would be like'' Cleared ILS RUNWAY 25 APPROACH, LOCALIZER ONLY OR GLIDEPATH UNSERVICEABLE

Like I said I am not 100% about this and the new MATS is fairly vague with regards to this.

[telex]

Another non-controller.

From the FAA IPM.

The name of an instrument approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, even if a component of the approach aid is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable. (Example: “Cleared ILS RWY 4, glideslope unusable.”)

[photofly]

“Cleared ILS RWY 4, glideslope unusable.” - that's just bizarre.

Rhetorical question: which set of minimums do you expect a pilot to use if he or she is cleared for an ILS approach with an u/s glideslope? Answer: the ones on the ILS approach plate labelled "LOC".

Every (category 1, regular) ILS plate I can find has a set of minimums for the LOC approach, and the LOCALIZER APPROACH is what I'd expect to be cleared for by name if a) I don't have a glideslope receiver or b) the glideslope is u/s.

From the CAP GEN (page 43) - my emphasis

When a single chart is used to show two approach procedures, the procedure identification separates the navigation types using the term "or". ILS and LOC procedures are considered one approach for this purpose and are not separately identified.

[Braun]

“Cleared ILS RWY 4, glideslope unusable.” - that's just bizarre.

Rhetorical question: which set of minimums do you expect a pilot to use if he or she is cleared for an ILS approach with an u/s glideslope? Answer: the ones on the ILS approach plate labelled "LOC".

Every (category 1, regular) ILS plate I can find has a set of minimums for the LOC approach, and the LOCALIZER APPROACH is what I'd expect to be cleared for by name if a) I don't have a glideslope receiver or b) the glideslope is u/s.

From the CAP GEN (page 43) - my emphasis

When a single chart is used to show two approach procedures, the procedure identification separates the navigation types using the term "or". ILS and LOC procedures are considered one approach for this purpose and are not separately identified.

There are also minimums for a circling but I couldn't just clear you for a circling approach with out saying "Cleared ILS RUNWAY 25 APPROACH CIRCLING RWY XX". I get your point, I don't disagree I am just looking for a Nav Canada controller who can help me find the paperwork that backs up one way or the other.


EDIT: I think you added to your post as I was typing as your reference to the CAP GEN was not there initially. Thanks, that helps. Our MATS states that we must clear an aircraft for the approach the way it is written in the CAP or RCAP.

[photofly]

If there's an ILS approach plate, with published LOC minima, that means there is also de facto a LOCALIZER approach for which one can be cleared - that's what the quote from the CAP GEN means.


So what is the difference between an ILS approach with an u/s glideslope, and a LOCALIZER approach? I see the quote from the FAA IPM, I just have no idea how to interpret it.

[Braun]

If there's an ILS approach plate, with published LOC minima, that means there is also de facto a LOCALIZER approach for which one can be cleared - that's what the quote from the CAP GEN means.


So what is the difference between an ILS approach with an u/s glideslope, and a LOCALIZER approach? I see the quote from the FAA IPM, I just have no idea how to interpret it.

I agree with you 100%. The FAA quote is exactly what I remember being instructed to do. I just can't find where it is written in our documentation as it has changed drastically over the past years. Thanks for you input though, I hadn't thought to check in the CAP GEN.

[ant_321]

I have heard "cleared the ils **, glideslope unservisable" numerous times.

[Braun]

I have heard "cleared the ils **, glideslope unservisable" numerous times.

It is, in fact, what we use at the ACC I work at. There are a few however who don't use it and no one seems to know who is correct. Supporting documents are proving very difficult to find with regards to the phraseology ATC should use. PITA.

[photofly]

It would certainly make a lot of sense to me to hear CLEARED LOCALIZER RUNWAY 05 APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE U/S - as a reminder to ignore the glideslope indicator if it was showing anything.


I see that KBUF, KIAG and KROC (the first three I checked) all have plates titled "ILS or LOC". I've never seen a Canadian plate marked like that, and the CAP GEN says it doesn't need to be. Perhaps it's an FAA/TC difference at play here.

[ahramin]

“Cleared ILS RWY 4, glideslope unusable.” - that's just bizarre

Bizarre maybe, but above all unsafe. There are at least a couple of crashes directly attributed to pilots trying to follow an unusable glideslope after being cleared this way. Granted this was back when this phraseology was first implemented. I'm sure the requirement for the clearance to match the plate name came about for a reason but it should never have been implemented until plate names took into account that requirement. I think we should someday get to the point where we can figure out a bad idea before it kills a bunch of people.

[Braun]

It would certainly make a lot of sense to me to hear CLEARED LOCALIZER RUNWAY 05 APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE U/S - as a reminder to ignore the glideslope indicator if it was showing anything.


I see that KBUF, KIAG and KROC (the first three I checked) all have plates titled "ILS or LOC". I've never seen a Canadian plate marked like that, and the CAP GEN says it doesn't need to be. Perhaps it's an FAA/TC difference at play here.

free jpg

Not sure why this one is marked that way then.

[kevenv]

We are required to use the published name of the approach. If it is called the ILS 25 the a/c is cleared for the ILS 25 glide path un serviceable. If the approach is labeled "ILS/DME 25 or LOC/DME 25" the a/c may be cleared for the LOC/DME approach.

From the old MANOPS 465.1 "specify in an approach clearance the published name of the approach as it appears in the CAP or RCAP"

[photofly]

So what would you reply to a non glide-slope equipped pilot who requested the LOCALIZER approach runway 12 at CYHM? The plate is titled ILS or NDB Rwy 12 (GNSS).

[kevenv]

So what would you reply to a non glide-slope equipped pilot who requested the LOCALIZER approach runway 12 at CYHM? The plate is titled ILS or NDB Rwy 12 (GNSS).

I would tell him that there is no published Localizer approach on RWY 12 at CYHM. I would also tell him that I will clear him for the ILS 12 and leave it to the him to fly the approach to localizer only minimums. There is a difference between this and the OP's question of what to do if the glidepath is un serviceable.

[photofly]

So what would you reply to a non glide-slope equipped pilot who requested the LOCALIZER approach runway 12 at CYHM? The plate is titled ILS or NDB Rwy 12 (GNSS).

I would tell him that there is no published Localizer approach on RWY 12 at CYHM.

That appears to conflict with the text of the CAP GEN that I quoted earlier:

When a single chart is used to show two approach procedures, the procedure identification separates the navigation types using the term "or". ILS and LOC procedures are considered one approach for this purpose and are not separately identified.

[kevenv]

So what would you reply to a non glide-slope equipped pilot who requested the LOCALIZER approach runway 12 at CYHM? The plate is titled ILS or NDB Rwy 12 (GNSS).

I would tell him that there is no published Localizer approach on RWY 12 at CYHM.

That appears directly to contradict the text of the CAP GEN that I quoted earlier:

When a single chart is used to show two approach procedures, the procedure identification separates the navigation types using the term "or". ILS and LOC procedures are considered one approach for this purpose and are not separately identified.

Guess I should have read your post more closely, missed the CapGen part. Not sure what to say. Our direction is as I stated in my earlier reply. We have received no "clarification" that the because the Cap Gen says the one approach can be considered two approaches, that we can change the published name on the CAP plate.

Again, our rule book states "specify in an approach clearance the published name of the approach as it appears in the CAP or RCAP. I would interpret this to mean you will fly the approach to whatever minimums you are required to use. If you cant fly a glide path then fly it to LOC mins. I will still clear you for the ILS because that is what I am required to do. Our direction has also been that we are to clear you for this approach and state that a component of it is un serviceable if required. If you think, as others seem to, that this is dangerous, I suggest you call the nearest Shift Manager and express your concerns. They really do pay attention to customer complaints.

[kevenv]

It would certainly make a lot of sense to me to hear CLEARED LOCALIZER RUNWAY 05 APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE U/S - as a reminder to ignore the glideslope indicator if it was showing anything.


I see that KBUF, KIAG and KROC (the first three I checked) all have plates titled "ILS or LOC". I've never seen a Canadian plate marked like that, and the CAP GEN says it doesn't need to be. Perhaps it's an FAA/TC difference at play here.

free jpg

Not sure why this one is marked that way then.

Not sure if it is still the case, but Pearson's approaches were all ILS/DME or LOC/DME RWY## (as late as 2010)

[photofly]

I was going to ask what approach you'd offer if a flight plan was filed showing the aircraft as having LOC capabilities but not ILS - but I see there's no discrete code for that, so I guess the question can't be asked.

On the subject of plate titles, it looks like they don't put more that two. So ILS or LOC or NDB gets the LOC removed. If there's no other NP approach then the LOC is included. That's only a guess though.