One for all those IFR guys and gals. In the November 25 plate update, the names for the different approaches have been modified. I will use Cairns as an example.
Runway 15 used to have a plate called a 15 ILS / 15 LLZ DME / 15 LLZ and you were cleared for either of those depending on what you wanted or what ground equipment was operating. Under the new system it is called and you are cleared for a 15 ILS approach, regardless of whether the GP is working.
VOR/DME and NDB/DME approaches are now called VOR A and NDB A approaches. VOR and NDB approaches are now called VOR B and NDB B. GPS NPA approaches have now been renamed RNAV approaches. The 33 LLZ approach is still a 33 LLZ approach.
Now the VOR, NDB and RNAV approaches I don't really have a problem with as they are still defined as to what equipment you are using and their associated minimas. The ILS however has me a little baffled. Do you think that being cleared for an ILS approach when the GP is not operating gives a false impression of what is available, a possible misreading of the associated minimas or contradicts itself when the GP is not working?
Your thoughts please on this latest bit of ICAO conforming.
No point harassing the controllers - they're as well aware of the problem as you.
You should be writing to CASA, the Airservices nobs and ATSB.
PS: IMO, if we have to stick with this ICAO convention, then the solution to this particular problem is to create a separate LLZ approach plate, so people could actually be cleared for and fly the LLZ without any ambiguity.
The purpose behind this is to make the name on the chart match exactly the name in onboard navigators (IFR GPS's FMC's etc). Most of the old approach names were too long to fit in the required space reserved for approach names in IFR GPS's so in the GPS's they had to be abbreviated. As the two were different it was deemed to be a source of confusion.
Now the approach name on a chart will match exactly the approach name in a GPS.
It's not just ILS's. I don't like the idea that an approach that is, say, a TWIN NDB/DME will now be titled NDB with a footnote that , oh, by the way, you require (a) dual ADF and (b) DME. This was exactly the situation that caused the USN accident at Dubrovnik.
I have no problem with the GPS/RNAV(GNSS) naming convention change. I think ICAO are going to have a few differences filed here....
I think that the prang at PGUM was a bit of a "one-of" but I believe that it could happen again under this nomenclature. I agree with reynoldsno1 (as I mostly do! ) that there will be quite a few States filing differences. I know of one place in particular that will most certainly be filing a difference on this!