PilotEdge Forums

Flying some approaches the other night at KLAS and KVGT I was cleared for the "ILS 12L"

The charts name is published as the "ILS or LOC 12L"

I read it back as cleared "ILS or LOC 12L"

I was corrected that i was cleared for the "ILS 12L"


I always thought that the big bold black letters on the plate is the name of the approach independent of what equipment u plan on using.

I did not think a controller could clear you for an approach without using the published name.


It actually happened twice,(being corrected) one at vgt another at las.

AIM 5-4-6d offers a little guidance

just want to make sure i understand what the controller was pointing out.

Thanks,

Erik

I can't give a detailed AIM-quoted reply as Peter probably can (meaning I should probably keep my mouth shut), but its my understanding that the OR portion of the plate means either/or. Cleared for the ILS 12 means that you're cleared for the ILS, not the LOC. If cleared for the ILS, you would presumably have different fixes, minimums, equipment requirements (sometimes...), etc... Key word I think is OR.

Nelson is correct. If the approach chart says ILS or LOC 12L, then that same chart covers 2 different approaches (ILS 12L and LOC 12L). There are minimums published for both on the same chart.

I agree with the last comment completely. There are two approaches. I was surprised to be cleared "ILS 12L" and not by the name of the plate.

Clearance for an ILS approach includes clearance to fly the LOC approach/minimums if present to my understanding.

Why do they publish an ILS XX (with LOC minimums) and then also have an ILS or LOC YY

Why do they publish an ILS XX (with LOC minimums) and then also have an ILS or LOC YY

They shouldn't anymore, do you have an example where they do?

Related:

Can we have a subforum called "Stump the Controller Starring Peter Grey"?

My understanding is that ILS approaches are being renamed "ILS or LOC" and you can be cleared for one or the other. The old phraseology was "Cleared ILS 36 approach, glideslope unusable."

stevekirks wrote:Related:

Can we have a subforum called "Stump the Controller Starring Peter Grey"?

Will there be non-aviation questions? Otherwise that might be an unwinnable game.

Ok, it makes sense they phased out (i cant find an example ) the ILS YY and now they are ILS or LOC YY

But still unclear on current phraseology for those then.

When i get an approach clearance i have been used to hearing the name of the plate in the clearance.

So when i an lookng at the ILS or LOC YY and only hear ILS YY in clearance, i get confused.


Plate reads: ILS or LOC YY
Clearance comes: Cleared ILS YY

If I want to fly the LOC approach, I have to ask for it? And atc has to cancel the ils clearance???

Seems silly

After getting a ILS approach clerance (at least in the past)i am used to deciding if i want to fly the gs or fly loc mins without futher atc interaction.

Now that I'm in the AIM to answer this one I'll start with the official AIM section that allows for ATC to use 1 name vs the other:

The name of an instrument approach, as
published, is used to identify the approach, even
though a component of the approach aid, such as the
glideslope on an Instrument Landing System, 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, except when the title of the
published approach procedures otherwise allows; for
example, ILS Rwy 05 or LOC Rwy 05.

That's AIM 5-4-6 d (and also AIM 5-4-7 d).

Now onto the question at hand.

So when i an lookng at the ILS or LOC YY and only hear ILS YY in clearance, i get confused.


Plate reads: ILS or LOC YY
Clearance comes: Cleared ILS YY

If I want to fly the LOC approach, I have to ask for it? And atc has to cancel the ils clearance???

First to limit the scope of the question AIM 1-2-3 specifically allows substitution in the case of VOR/NDB OR GPS type approaches. So this hypothetical only applies to ILS OR LOC approaches.

That AIM section (1-2-3) only deals with GPS and isn't relevant to this question.

And the AIM has nothing on the ILS or LOC question in terms of how you fly the approach.

A search through the instrument procedures handbook shows nothing on it as well, same with the ATC manual, or any other reference I looked through.

So with nothing saying you can sub in a LOC for an ILS I have to conclude that you are correct in saying that an amended clearance is needed in this case. Honestly though if you are planning to do the LOC approach ahead of time, just let ATC know and we will accommodate.