ILS or LOC RW XX

[Peter Grey]

1 quick thing I forgot to add.

While my last post is the 100% legal answer, functionally there isn't an easy way for ATC to tell if you are doing a localizer approach vs a ILS approach baring a dive and drive type method.

[Ryan B]

Well as a controller (not on PE but RW) I'd be concerned if a pilot was diving to minimums after I just cleared them for an ILS approach. I would totally issue a low alt alert if I saw that going... not to mention the MSAW would throw out an LA on the target anyway.

If PG can't find the info I've got no hope but if I clear you for an ILS I expect you to do that. If I clear you for a localizer approach I expect you to fly that... (and then in that case I would expect some pilots do dive to mins).

If you really want an localizer approach specifically state so in your approach request... not a big deal.

edit: I read some more stuff and I guess my assumptions are wrong-ish... I guess with the word "OR" in the approach plate the pilot can navigate the final approach course using either navigation source.

That's stupid (on the FAA's part for not clarifying) and I'd recommend advising the controller you'll be doing the LOC (or best case scenario tell them you request the LOC) so they don't panic when you're diving to minimums.

Then there's another part in the FAR 91.123 that discusses ATC clearances...
"(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory."

These two answers seem contradictory. You were cleared for an ILS. You can't do the LOC.

Anyway.... another gray area imo!!

[Peter Grey]

Yes, MSAW is one way that ATC would find out about that.

I should have been more clear in my post. If you fly a reasonable descent on a loc approach it would be hard to figure that out. A dive and drive would 100% give it away.

But as Ryan says and I 100% agree with, just ask for the loc, it's easier that way.

[sellener777]

Reading the AIM section we referenced, I still am confused. Based on the AIM , shouldnt a controller still refer to an approach (in our case "the ILS or LOC YY" by the name on the plate.

I read the AIM section as stating 2 things:

1) refer to the approach as published (ILS or LOC YY in our case)
2) atc will point out inop navaids unless otherwise allowed by the title of the procedure.



Going back to the "ILS or LOC 12L" at VGT.....

I am of the thinking the approach clearance should have come as "cleared ILS or LOC RWY 12L"

When it came as cleared "ILS 12L" the confusion started. VGT simply does not have a procedure published with that title.

Thanks Peter for the man hours.

[Peter Grey]

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, except when the title of the
published approach procedures otherwise allows, for
example, ILS or LOC.

That's the 5-4-7 version which shows the example a little clearer in my view.

Note the "except when the title of the published approach procedures otherwise allows, for example, ILS or LOC". That's the part that let's ATC not say the full thing.

[sellener777]

Ill spend time researching and see if i can wrap my head around it.

Still trying to understand their verbage on...."unless otherwise allowed , for example ils or loc"

That verbage seems to state when or when not a controller has to point out inop nav aides.

Then their is 5-4-5 a3(a) "more then one nav system seperated by word "or" indicates either type of equipment may be used to execute the final approach"

That seems questionably clear lol

Give me some time to digest though, and ill see if it becomes clear.

[Peter Grey]

I don't like to pull out the ATC manual as it's not a reference that pilots are held to, but as this is really an ATC question I'll do so here.

This should make it crystal clear:

From FAA Order 7110.65 4-8-1 a 1

To require an aircraft to execute a particular
instrument approach procedure, specify in the
approach clearance the name of the approach as
published on the approach chart. Where more than
one procedure is published on a single chart and a
specific procedure is to be flown, amend the approach
clearance to specify execution of the specific
approach to be flown. If only one instrument
approach of a particular type is published, the
approach needs not be identified by the runway
reference.

Another thing that may help. Here is the official list of example phraseology that can be used to clear a pilot for an approach:

“Cleared Approach.”
“Cleared V−O−R Approach.”
“Cleared V−O−R Runway Three-Six Approach.”
“Cleared L−D−A Approach.”
“Cleared L−D−A Runway Three-Six Approach.”
“Cleared I−L−S Approach.”
“Cleared Localizer Approach.”
“Cleared Localizer Back Course Runway One-Three
Approach.”
“Cleared RNAV Z Runway Two-Two Approach.”
“Cleared GPS Runway Two Approach.”
“Cleared BRANCH ONE Arrival and RNAV Runway
One-Three Approach.”
“Cleared I−L−S Runway Three-Six Approach, glideslope
unusable.”
“Cleared S−D−F Approach.”
“Cleared G−L−S Approach.”

You'll note that none list "OR"

[sellener777]

That is clear, thanks Peter.

[stealthbob]

I work in a highly regulated industry so I get the whole "interpretation" thing...

As a regulation nerd I have really enjoyed this rabbit hole of a thread we all flew down into, all predicated on the two letter word "Or". I am learning now that I think it's a large part of what I enjoy about this new found hobby.

Nice

[Talan2000]

Great thread, thanks for sharing. I totally understand how this could gnaw at you even if some think, "oh what's the big deal"