When an ILS is not an ILS...

[Seggy]

For the past couple of weeks, the Glide Slope portion of the ILS 19 in ALB and the Glide Slope part of the ILS 24 down in ISP has been NOTAMED out of service. So with that said on the ATIS they are still advertising the ILS to those runways. When we get cleared for the approach, they clear us for the ILS 19/24 Glide Slope out of service or unusable.

Why don't they just clear us for the localizer and advertise it on the ATIS?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Seggy

Why don't they just clear us for the localizer and advertise it on the ATIS?

ATC must use the approach title in their clearance. LOC isn't in the title on that ILS. ILS' are slowing being reissued as "or LOC".

[meritflyer]

From the ATC handbook -

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED (type) APPROACH.

(For a straight-in-approach- IFR),

CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH.

(To authorize a pilot to execute his/her choice of instrument approach),

CLEARED APPROACH.

(Where more than one procedure is published on a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown),

CLEARED (specific procedure to be flown) APPROACH.

(To authorize a pilot to execute an ILS/MLS approach when the glideslope/glidepath is out of service),

CLEARED (type) APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE/GLIDEPATH UNUSABLE.
EXAMPLE-
"Cleared Approach."
"Cleared V-O-R Approach."
"Cleared V-O-R Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared F-M-S Approach."
"Cleared F-M-S Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared I-L-S Approach."
"Cleared localizer Back Course Runway One Three Approach."
"Cleared R-NAV Runway Two Two Approach."
"Cleared GPS Runway Two Approach."
"Cleared BRANCH ONE R-NAV Arrival and R-NAV Runway One Three Approach."
"Cleared I-L-S Runway Three Six Approach, glideslope unusable."
"Cleared M-L-S Approach."
"Cleared M-L-S Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared M-L-S Runway Three Six Approach, glidepath unusable."

[DE727UPS]

They should also mention the glideslope is out of service in the ATIS.

[E_Dawg]

Also, some airports (like BUR) have a published LOC plate separate from the ILS for a given runway. So saying 'cleared for the LOC' may actually be an entirely different approach.

[oktex88]

ATC clears planes for the ILS glideslope is out of service instead of just saying cleared for the LOC because the ILS still could be putting out glideslope information even though it could be incorrect. So a pilot could still make the mistake of following the glideslope information when cleared for the "LOC" but if they are cleared for the ILS glideslope out of service they are reminded that the glideslope may not be working correctly or may not be working at all. It also has to do with the Charts, if the pilot was cleared for the "LOC" he wouldn't be able to find the charts for that cause it probably doesn't exist where as the "ILS" chart does exists.

[exleardriver]

Originally Posted by oktex88

ATC clears planes for the ILS glideslope is out of service instead of just saying cleared for the LOC because the ILS still could be putting out glideslope information even though it could be incorrect. So a pilot could still make the mistake of following the glideslope information when cleared for the "LOC" but if they are cleared for the ILS glideslope out of service they are reminded that the glideslope may not be working correctly or may not be working at all. It also has to do with the Charts, if the pilot was cleared for the "LOC" he wouldn't be able to find the charts for that cause it probably doesn't exist where as the "ILS" chart does exists.

+1. and what tgrayson said above.

[butt]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

ILS' are slowing being reissued as "or LOC".

I hear they're going to eventually change all GPS approaches to say RNAV, as well. I've always wondered, though, why they don't just change them all at once. Why do they have to "slowly" change them? What more do they have to do than just add a word or two on the chart?

[exleardriver]

Originally Posted by butt

I hear they're going to eventually change all GPS approaches to say RNAV, as well. I've always wondered, though, why they don't just change them all at once. Why do they have to "slowly" change them? What more do they have to do than just add a word or two on the chart?

pilots can be slow to accept changes to headings in new directions..

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by butt

I hear they're going to eventually change all GPS approaches to say RNAV, as well. I've always wondered, though, why they don't just change them all at once. Why do they have to "slowly" change them? What more do they have to do than just add a word or two on the chart?

It's more difficult than just doing a search and replace in Word. The Flight Procedures folks are the ones who design the approaches, but they don't draw the pictures. That privilege belongs to the chart makers, which used to be NOS for the government, but now is NACO. Unless things have changed recently, the approach only truly existed as a form that was filled out and put in a physical file cabinet. Changing the approach name probably means making all those physical changes on the physical forms.

They have to be careful; not all ILS' have a LOC approach at all, so you just can't change all the names without looking at the approach. Too, they often store up changes to an approach and make them all at once when the next revision comes out. This might be one of those times.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by butt

I hear they're going to eventually change all GPS approaches to say RNAV, as well. I've always wondered, though, why they don't just change them all at once. Why do they have to "slowly" change them? What more do they have to do than just add a word or two on the chart?

Because the UPS man would break his back carrying all of the new Jepps to my house at once