prop-wash

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.

Tinstaafl

Bunch of f******g idiots, those who decided to implement that piece of ICAO crap.

Pinky the pilot

A former Chief Pilot I know once descibed ICAO as being
"the lowest common denominator"
Says it all really I would think.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

Philthy

You will also have possibly noted the plethora of NOTAMs that have appeared in the last few days to fix a cock-up whereby most of the ILS approaches around the country suddenly required DME.

Another great leap forward from the people who brought you NAS!

Uncommon Sense

This has been an issue of fiery debate at work - mainly to do wuith what an aircraft is cleared when the GP is out of service.

According to the gospel - the aircraft shall be cleared.. "ILS APPROACH.

I am sure you will agree it is absolute baloney, and another, Korean Air at Nimitz Hill (PGUM) waiting to happen again.

You can rest assured that most controllers who know what they are doing will be clearing you for LOCALIZER APPROACH in this instance despite the continuous crap emanating from Canberra.

It really makes you wonder some days...

(omg: I can not believe I used the phrase "I am sure you will agree"! )

Tinstaafl

Wonder what would happen if, every time we're cleared for an ILS approach, we ask for confirmation about whether ATC means the ILS, or the LLZ? I mean if it was done consistantly by many pilots.

Would the idiots-that-be take notice?

Philthy

Tinstaafl,

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.

Cheers,

Philthy

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.

Bevan666

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.

Bevan..

Capt Fathom

Like anything new, it will take time to become familar with.

I would assume that if the GP, for example, is off the air, that will be noted in the ATIS for short term outages.

What do you do at non controlled airports where there is an ILS? You may be planning on the ILS, but you won't know until you join final if is is operational.

reynoldsno1

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....

Tinstaafl

Philthy, not trying to harass ATC. Was meant as a way to force the attention of those further up the chain responsible for this stupidity.

A form of 'work to rule' if you like.

Capt Claret

Ya'll might like to read AIC 12/04 for an insight into the name changes.

As others have noted I too can see problems being cleared an ILS when the GS is out! Fix one problem, create another.

olderairhead

Maybe I am missing the point here......

If you are cleared for an ILS and during the approach the GP fails what do you do - scream at the controller because you were cleared for an ILS and there is no GP or continue with a LLZ approach???

And what do you do when you plan for an ILS into say Albany and you find the GP u/s?? Naturally convert it to once again a LLZ approach.

Get real, thats what we are trained for, to be prepared for outages. Or at least I was.................

Oh and by the way.....happy new year.

OzExpat

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!

Chimbu chuckles

Of course it wouldn't have been easier, safer and more cost effective to change the names in the data bases to match the paper charts would it?

ICAO International Convention Against the bloody Obvious.

Nobs!