Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

ATIS on the ILS frequency.

Wikiposts
Search
ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

ATIS on the ILS frequency.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 5th Aug 2008, 14:38
  #1 (permalink)  
niknak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATIS on the ILS frequency.

The most recent CHIRP carried an article about pilots having difficulty clearly getting the Luton ATIS at an early range/reasonably high level, because it shares the frequency with another European airport just outside the range which ICAO stipulate same frequencies should transmit on.
In the article, it stated that MAN had the same problem so they put the ATIS on the VOR and the problem dissapeared.
Obviously Luton does not have a VOR, but I was wondering:
a) As they are a NATS unit, wouldn't it be possible to put it on the BKY VOR, or/and,
b) Couldn't it be put on the ILS Localiser frequency? - they operate in much the same frequency spectrum as VORs and have the same ICAO distance/same frequency requirements as VORs - which I am told, are greater than for ATIS/ATC frequencies.
niknak is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 16:37
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LLZ is directional, transmitting very narrow beam. You won't hear it unless you are on extended centerline. As for the range, it should be not more than 30-40 miles.
Wojtus is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 16:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: slightly left of you
Age: 43
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
couldn't it somehow piggy-back the ident??

Edinburgh has a similar problem i find that generally until i get close I always pick up amsterdam operational info
cortilla is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 18:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't think it is allowed (something in the depths of my part-pickled brain regarding emergency speech facilities).

There's always VOLMET.
Lurking123 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2008, 21:27
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmslow and North Yorks
Age: 53
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's definately possible, but the range would be much more more restricted than a VOR. The RAF still have an emergency speech facility on their ILS systems...so it does work...

It isn't done because the currently operational systems are better.
ComJam is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2008, 03:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Are we really that short of frequencies that the DOC cannot be improved by utilising another frequency? And VOLMET doesnt tell you which runway is in use and other pertinent landing information.

The same problem applies to EMA when approaching from the south which is blasted out by, I recall, one of the French ATIS. If the wind is such that it's difficult to second guess the runway and you get it wrong you end up having to reset things halfway through the melee descent. Also better to get the ATIS before descent rather than having only one pilot on ATC during descent (have you noticed the ATIS gets longer will all sorts of disclaimers - increased bird activity - how many owls do they get at midnight?) which has ramifications for level bust.

I think this is an area where frequency allocation has an indirect impact on flight safety.

Of course, in the "olden days" LATCC would tell you the runway in use at destination along with the inbound routing, STAR etc. I guess this was dropped due to RT workload?
fireflybob is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2008, 06:52
  #7 (permalink)  
Spitoon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If you could see the hassle involved in getting a frequency then, yes, we do appear to be short of spectrum. I can't see any reason why the CAA would invent these difficulties if they do not really exist.

You may have provided a bit of an answer - or at least a way to focus on flight safety issues - in your post. If you are unable to obtain the info you need from ATIS, then ask whichever unit you are speaking to to get it for you and explain why. A few reports going in to CAA from ATC will soon focus minds - and hopefully there will be a solution in there somewhere.

I wouldn't normally advocate increasing ATC workload - I've been that one-armed paperhanger too often myself - but if you need the info for reasons of safety, that's one of the things ATC is there for (although I admit that some of my younger colleagues do seem to hold a slightly different view!).
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.