Why does MPL CAO call a VOR approach a VOR/LOC?

[Tee Emm]

The CAO with regard to the MPL licence specifies competency at a VOR/LOC instrument approach.

An extract is here.
Unit IF11: VOR/LOC Instrument Approach – Flight Standard
Unit Description: Knowledge and skills to conduct an instrument approach using the VOR
approach procedure beginning with a descent from a route MSA or LSALT in compliance with
any altitude restrictions on a prescribed track, to the MDA applicable to the aircraft category
whilst maintaining obstacle clearance in accordance with instructions in AIP and conducting a
published missed approach if visual reference is not achieved by the MAPT for the procedure.


I have heard of a VOR approach but not a VOR/LOC approach. The extract only mentions the words VOR approach in the explanation. It doesn't mention a Localiser. Any thoughts or is it possible the title VOR/LOC is a mistake as there is no such specific approach

[Fonz121]

I don't think its referring to an approach where you use a VOR and a LLZ at the same time but rather a VOR approach and a LLZ approach as separate approaches but because they are pretty much the same thing just grouping them together for the flight std description. Does that make sense? Or is that what you even meant?

[Unhinged]

Yep, it's an either-or thing. However, both approaches use the same radio, the same display, interpreted the same way (caveat different sensitivity of course), giving azimuth guidance, flown to an MDA. The way you use the navaids and fly the approach is very similar. A LOC approach is closer to a VOR approach in the way it is flown, than it is to an ILS

[Bedder believeit]

I could be wrong, but from my 40 years in aviation as a controller, I think the following: LOC = Locator and LLZ = LOCALIZER however it seems that over the years (due I think to mainly North American influences) the abbreviation "LOC" has turned it's meaning to mean LOCALIZER. Most modern (post glass cockpit aircraft) with an American background have the LOC on the panel meaning "Localizer". Correct me if I'm wrong!

[Unhinged]

As you request ! At least in Australia, you are wrong. It used to be the way that you describe, but the current definition in AIP-Aus (GEN 2.2-34) is that LOC = Localiser. There is no current definition for LLZ.

LLZ was deleted from the list and LOC re-defined as Localiser in the November 2008 AIP update. I think it was when they finally realised that we don't have any (Twin) Locater approaches left here.

Current approach plates reflect this usage.

[Pera]

I think it was when they finally realised that we don't have any (Twin) Locater approaches left here.

They should have checked more thoroughly.

Is the term locater still used or are they simply referred to as NDB's or by their name.

[Unhinged]

That's a bit cryptic. Are you saying you know of a current Locator approach in Australia ? I think you'll find any Locators in Oz are now called NDBs. Ergo, no Locator approaches left.

[cficare]

Dont tell ne the YMEN Twin Locator has disappeared!!!

[Unhinged]

Despite the assertions of Airservices' own website (YMEN Tower - Airservices Australia (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/facilities/towers/essendontower.asp)) there is no plate for the Twin Locator approach anymore. Not sure when it disappeared. Launceston has a current approach using 2 NDBs, but it's just called NDB RWY 32L (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/MLTNB01-120.pdf)

[Centaurus]

Take the Melbourne 27 localiser approach and Melbourne 27 VOR approach. The tracks, DME tables MDA's are all different and the localiser is a more narrow beam. The term VOR/LOC doesn't fit that particular scenario.

With some autopilots such as that used in the old 737-200 series the autopilot control panel had a switch called VOR/LOC which you used to track a VOR or a localiser beam. Maybe the scribe who wrote the MPL syllabus thought that was a neat name and used it in the MPL syllabus. But then why not say so - rather than refer to VOR only in the explanatory blurb shown in the first post?

[chainsaw]

Bedder believit (post#4):

I could be wrong, but from my 40 years in aviation as a controller, I think the following: LOC = Locator and LLZ = LOCALIZER however it seems that over the years (due I think to mainly North American influences) the abbreviation "LOC" has turned it's meaning to mean LOCALIZER. Most modern (post glass cockpit aircraft) with an American background have the LOC on the panel meaning "Localizer". Correct me if I'm wrong!

Unhinged (post#5)

As you request ! At least in Australia, you are wrong. It used to be the way that you describe, but the current definition in AIP-Aus (GEN 2.2-34) is that LOC = Localiser. There is no current definition for LLZ.

LLZ was deleted from the list and LOC re-defined as Localiser in the November 2008 AIP update. I think it was when they finally realised that we don't have any (Twin) Locater approaches left here.

ICAO Doc 8400 Seventh Edition 2007:

LOC - Localizer (spelt with a 'z' to reflect the ICAO spelling!)

ICAO Doc 8400 contains:

...abbreviations and codes approved by the Council of ICAO for worldwide use in the international telecommunications service and in aeronatical documents...........with the same status as PANS.

So I think Australia may actually have got it right (at least on this one) Unhinged. :)

[Blue Heeler]

Maybe I can shed some light on the situation re LOC vs. LLZ having been on the ICAO panel at the time these changes were made.

Some few years ago changes were made to the way instrument approach procedures are titled in ICAO and these were consequently applied to Australian procedures.

Under the amended rules an IAL procedure is named using only the primary azimuth aid. Additional navaids e.g. DME are annoted elsewhere on the chart. For example a VOR/DME is now a VOR approach, and there will be a note or minima where the approach requires or takes advantage of DME. The approach will always be a VOR approach, but there may be a VOR minima and also a minima if DME is used.

Around the same time it was recognised that most aircaft avionics were not compatible with the ICAO abbreviation for localizer LLZ. Almost all aircaft use LOC on control panels, FMSs etc. and throughout a large number of countries the abbreviation (as shown on an approach chart) was also LOC. So LLZ has gone and LOC is in.

Now of course up until that time LOC had been used by ICAO (and Australia) to mean locator not localiser.

With the change of LOC to mean localizer, the term locator disappeared and those navaids are now described (correctly) as an NDB. So a localizer approach became an NDB approach, based on the rule that the title includes the primary azimuth aid.

As far as I recall these changes all came into effect in about 2005.

With regards to the MPL Order, and VOR/LOC, the intent appears to demonstrate competency in conducting a VOR or LOC although the text of the competency unit speaks about VOR and I could find only an oblique reference to LOC at the end. But as someone commented, I guess it's pretty much the same.

[Unhinged]

Chainsaw, I think you rather missed the point.

Bedder Believeit wrote "Correct me if I'm wrong!". To which I replied "As you request ! At least in Australia, you are wrong."

I was not saying that Australia was wrong; I was saying that BB's assertion was incorrect in Australia.

Nuff sed.

[chainsaw]

Unhinged,

Yes, I see what you mean if you look at it from the perspective of:

I was not saying that Australia was wrong; I was saying that BB's assertion was incorrect in Australia.

I totally agree, and no offence was implied towards you in my earlier post! Thanks for clearing up my misconception! :ok:

[Mach E Avelli]

Away from the semantics and back to the original question. If skill is demonstrated in the VOR approach it qualifies you for a localizer approach and vice versa. As opposed to ILS and NDB which involve other skills to be demonstrated (and I don't need some smart-arse to quote the CASA rules for a RENEWAL because the question is in relation to MPL issue). That's all they are getting at, but didn't follow through in all the explanatory text.