ILS approach clearance terminology
 

I stumbled over this during my last recurrent. Let's say that you are getting ready to shoot (as they say in the US) an ILS approach, with the glideslope out of service. What is the correct terminology that should be used by the controller? "Cleared for the ILS 9R, Glideslope OTS", or "Cleared for the LOC 9R"?

It was argued that "Cleared for ILS, (G/S OTS)" should be used in order to avoid confusion with a different procedure. I have never flown to places where an ILS and LOC approach were on different plates (If it would be the case, would the procedure read like LOC-Y Rwy 9R?). Additionally, some controllers tell you to expect the ILS with GS OTS, but they clear you ("cleared for ILS") and omit the GS OTS in the clearance since it has been previously mentioned.

What does the controller handbook say?

7 7 7 7

From the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook
 

http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/IPH/CH%2005a.pdf

"The name of an instrument approach, as published, is
used to identify the approach, even if a component of
the approach aid 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. (Example:
“Cleared ILS RWY 4, glide slope unusable.”)"

I find it quite common that ATC clears us to "Intercept LOC RWY xx, report established", once "XXXX established RWY xx" has been called the final clearance is "XXXX you are cleared to descend with the procedure".

/CP

Controller : "Cleared for Localiser-Only approach Rwy.... , report established".

Pilot : "Established Localiser Rwy...."

Controller : "Continue approach Rwy.... , contact Tower (1.. . .. freq.)"