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:

Thank you Pappy, you saved me the effort!

Good point, Pappy. "Runway in sight" is what you tell the other pilot. :O

MD80 going into MSY with 300 overcast and a mile at 400 ft in turbulence autopilot clicked off and I took over manually and salvaged the approach by going back to localizer and GS pushing power to approach power, breaking out and landing. I think any competent pilot could do the same. Automation fails all the time so use it but don't trust it.

Jolly well done but that's not the same as losing the ILS signal when you're visual.

Meatlover,

Tell me why it is that you wouldn't question their course of actions?

In this case you would only ask why he chose to go around, but what if the situation was different and potentially dangerous, would you still decide not to question the captain on his decision?

This is a multi-crew environment and the industry is trying to lower the cockpit gradient and for good reason.

- absolutely:D:D

Doing an instrument approach and seeing the runway it doesn't matter what your instruments are doing just land the f**king airplane and talk about what is wrong with the approach taxiing in. Don't talk on the approach unless it is a confirmation of cleared for the approach. If you see the runway, LAND.

Exactly what several people on this thread have already said. So, I'm not sure what you're adding to the topic especially with your completely irrelevant MD80 war story.

If you're confirming that you're cleared for an approach you wouldn't be on the approach anyway. You don't think we should acknowledge RT calls and clearances or carry out checklists on an approach?

Swearing doesn't make you appear intelligent by the way.

Please, no more extraneous hero stories.

Thank you LSM, you saved me the effort! (I've heard something like that before)

Funny how many hero's emerge once the sensible answer's been presented!

BTW...Sorry I swore earlier, but all my :ugh::ugh::ugh: was starting to hurt!

Hi meatlover,

You can't continue your approach beyond the approach ban if you don't have the minimum required RVR, as in this case.

Cheers.

Having flown into New Orleans countless times, there are a few things I can say about it...

The place doesn't typically suffer from weather such as the type that causes continuous rain, fog or haze. It does however suffer day-long pounding rain, thunderstorms and similar weather.

So, since the turbulence was severe enough to "click off" the autopilot, therefore clearly indicating significant and hazardous weather, my question is...

What the F_@& were you doing flying an approach in it??? I at least hope that you're going to tell us that you were on the runway 01 approach???

I2021,

Approach ban is a very much theoretical thing, and does not even exist in a lot of countries. In reality you do make the approach if you as PIC think you will have a good chance of seeing the required cisual guiding elements at your MDA/DA+ and do not ask current visibility AT the OM/1000'/FAF .

Rule says OVER, not BY anyhow:8

No, the MD80 was famous for having glitches so we expected them. We got the first ones that came out and they were even worse. Losing an AP in the approach happened a lot so no heroics required, just hand fly it. If you never land in turbulence you must come from a different planet. On this planet you look at your landing minimums and possible severe weather, but turbulence is part of the environment you fly in every day. That is what the seat belt sign is for.

Hi despegue,

It is indeed theoretical, but I believe that our friend meatlover is looking for some theoretical reference (which I did not give by the way) as the statement "someone told me" is a well spread issue in our industry, as you well know. Unfortunately I'm on my phone and can't provide the link to the EU OPS but there are countless threads on tech log dealing with commencement and continuation of approach.

Cheers.

Thank you all for the responses.
I am just a newbie still learning so do bare with me please as you already are.

Thatsaviation,

I do not question his course of action only because I was not there and do not know his reasons.
Maybe the weather was bad? Maybe there were two parallel runways and he wasn't in VMC? Or in doubt? I don't know.


One more question.
I-2021,
"An instrument approach may be commenced regardless of the reported RVR/VIS but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/Visibility is less than the applicable landing minima.
Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the Commander shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment."

For the first point. If your reported RVR/VIS was below the applicable minima, what would be the point to shoot the approach till the Appraoch ban if you can't continue the approach after that even if you were visual?
Not saying you're wrong. The way it is written, you are absolutely right, but I'm wondering what the point is?

For the second point. So if there is no outer marker, our RVR/VIS is below applicable landing minima, the captain can in this case elect to continue beyond 1000 feet to the MDA anyway?

Confusion.
Thanks I'm advance, I'm sure I'm missing something here..

In agreement with bubbers. The AP kicking off shouldn't trigger a missed/go around in of itself.

WC, did you read the thread title?

Meatlover. Most of us OFB (Old Fart Brigade) are more than happy to explain things to the 'newbies.'

In your case what I think what's happened is some confusion between the criteria to 'commence' an approach, and the requirments to 'continue' an approach. They are different.

It's true that there issues that prevent us from 'commencing' an approach, unless specific criteria exist that you mentioned, i.e.: past the FAF when the WX is received,etc.

However, once past the final approach fix you're dealing with things that will allow you to "continue", which by FAA regulation (most other countries are similar, expect China which is a whole different sordid affair) include:

-having the approach light system in view which will allow you to further continue to about 100 feet (CAT I ILS),

-then, having the 'red terminating bars' in sight, allows you to continue until you see specifics of the runway environment, then

-you land.

So, if you have any or all of the above in sight regardless of the distance, ie: 4 kms, there is nothing that prevents you from continuing the 'approach' and LANDING. Furthermore, its legal, normal and expected, so there's no need to 'request, confirm, beg or borrow" anything.

Make sense?


ps: I've only seen an Autopilot kick of due to turbulence when the turbulence was causing IAS changes +/- 25 knots and VSI +/- 2000 FPM. Now, I only have a little over 20,000 hours so I haven't seen everything, but the autopilot 'kicking off at 400 feet. No need to Go-Around over it, true. But, I'd question whether he should have been there in the first place. Mind you, it might be the whole 'old bold' thing.

Or maybe it was an MD80 has a POS autopilot so it can't be trusted so be ready to take over. That, in my opinion, was what happened to us.

Well maybe it should have its own thread then?