ILS signal lost during final..
 

Flying an ILS approach. On localizer and glide slope. Visual with runway.
ILS signal is lost for some reason.
You can just advice ATC and tell him requesting a visual from there, is this right?
Recently a friend of mine told me his captain performed a go around because of this, so I was just wondering if that was fully necessary?
Ofcourse I'm not questioning his course of action, it just got me thinking..

Also on that note. A visual approach requiring 5 KM VIS and 1500 ceiling.
You need this before starting a visual approach.
What if visibility was 4000 meters and you lost the ILS signal BUT are visual with runway. I assume it is legal to request a visual in this case is it not?

Bare with me please guys. May be stupid questions to lots of you.

Thanks :ok:

Unless there was a reason to believe that visibility with the runway might have been lost before touchdown, I can't see why the scenario you describe required a missed approach.

Once you are VISUAL, will remain so and in a position for a normal landing, I don't see why you are asking for a visual approach--the approach did everything it was supposed to do! Just land, amazing timing, tho.

GF

Exactly as the above 2 posters wrote.

Lose it in IMC - GA. If visual and can
maintain contact with runway - continue.

Can only speak for the U.S. The visual references required by 91.175 have been met so you land.

He went around!!!!! :D

Hope you had excess fuel, what would he do if he was tight on fuel??

What ever happened to good old common sense????

True,i would put this in the 'new captain who freaked out for no reason' or 'captain who cant fly without FD' or a bad a:mad: "nitpicker":E

How would you ever expect to get a visual approach clearance at 4,000 RVR?

We've been training it out of people in the school system for decades. But, it's only now that those people we've been training it out of, are in such dire need of it.

The answer is simple. If you have not acquired the required visual reference to legally continue the approach to land, then continue on the Non-Precision aspects of the approach. For example, if only the GS failed, continue to LOC minimums, then if you have the necessary visual cues, continue forward. If not, Go-around.

If the whole ILS system shut down, provided that you have the "approach light' system in view, then you can legally continue until you have the runway environment (or however your local authority state it) in view. This could be at 4000 feet, it could be at 400 feet, or at 40 effin miles. It doesn't matter, so long as you have visually acquired the necessary references.

Your friend decided to Go Around. Personally, I'd have no problem with that. Much better to sit and discuss that Go-Around over Beer and Burgers, than to wish the hell he had gone around, but didn't.

meatlover
 

You answered to yourself when You start to speak about the Visual and the Minimums.
:p

You don't have to fly an approach down to the minimums you can elect to increase the minimums to whatever you like (within reason) due to any reason you decide on the day. All approaches (save low viz auto lands) are designed to get you down to a visual segment to land. If your visual when you loose the ILS and can remain visual whats the problem continuing? I would have no problem with continuing however without knowing the full circumstances of your friends approach its hard to say what should have been done, however a GA is a safe option and can't be criticised even if its not what you or I would have done.

Thank you all for the responses.

Flyingchanges,

Why not?
Surely you cannot get a clearance to shoot a visual approach with 4KM visibility.
All I'm saying is in the middle of the approach if your ILS signal was lost, you could continue if visual. Why can you not ask for a visual then?
The only reason I say you should ask for it, is because if something goes wrong, and you were cleared for the ILS approach and the signal was lost, technically you were not legal to continue, UNLESS you had notified ATC and requested to continue visual.
This is just how I understand it and stand to be corrected maybe.

This is how someone explained it to me, please advice if everyone agrees with this.
Your reported RVR is 1400 meters. Shooting a NPA you require 1500 meters on the chart.
You are almost certain that the reported RVR seems to be unreliable like it is in many places in Africa.
You shoot the approach till the outer marker and now are visual.
You are still legal to continue because you are visual.
Isn't it the same?

Please advice.
Again, thanks guys.

Good question. :ok:

Meat lover, 4,000 RVR? How long is your average runway and when do RVR reports begin to be issued, as opposed to reported Met Vis?

When did I say 4000 RVR?

I don't get this "request visual" thing. Why? You have the target in sight so Hit it square on. The ILS goes AWOL. You visually fly the centre line; Mk.1 eye ball maintains the correct perspective for 3 degrees. Guess what you follow the now defunct ILS signal. Job done, it's called piloting. Go around with the crash point in sight is daft, period. If the signal stays off how are you going to make the 2nd approach if there is no back up? You divert and should get your back-side kicked by the D.OPs and captaincy questioned.

When did I say you did? P.S. someone's post has been edited ;)

Re: visual approach clearance. In your country isn't issuance of a visual approach clearance tied to reported WX at the airport? It is where I fly.

When keying the mic: if instead of "requesting visual" you report "runway in sight" does that not let ATC know that your instrument approach has been a success? :confused:

With that considered, I am glad he asked that question as the varied responses got me thinking. :ok:

Requesting permission for everything
 

This is almost too painful to read. I can't actually believe that people are attempting to give logical answers. If this question does not epitomize where this industry has ended up then I dont what does. And as for the "Catptain" who went around, words completely fail me.

This has become way to painful. Let me ask a question. The last time you completed an ILS approach, when you reached minimums, did you:

a) report the airport in sight, or
b) request a visual approach, or
c) Land the f^@&ing airplane!!!

Why did you land? Because you had the REQUIRED visual references to continue the approach and land.

Did it matter at what point during that approach you obtained the visual reference? NO! Again....NO! If you have the required visual references, you don't need ANY ILS components.


This is what happens when the training pilots receive is simply to pass tests. No common sense or actual thought processes taking place with this 'Children of the Magenta Line' generation.

God help where this industry is going.:ugh: